Help Our UAL Friends

[Orval Fairbairn]

A neighbor, who is UAL (ret) asked me to circulate this one.

They make some pretty good points, as the UAL people currently stand to
get reamed pretty badly.

*****************

Due to the bankruptcies of Delta and Northwest there is a very strong
call in Washington for immediate pension relief.* The problem is the
relief as proposed WILL DO NOTHING to help save the pensions at United
Airlines.

If you think it is unfair that Congress changes the law now to help
Delta and Northwest without including United Airlines then you must join
us now.* Write to demand that any pension legislation must include
provisions to save the pensions at United Airlines.

Harry Reid, Senate minority leader said, ³Congress has an immediate
opportunity to pass legislation enabling both companies to keep pension
plans for workers in place.²

Johnny Isakson, senator from Georgia said, ³We want to bring the bill
to the floor as early as next week.²

It is imperative that we ALL write ASAP!* This may be our last chance
to influence Congress.* Writing is worth your time, if United Airlines
is not included in this legislation, you may lose your pensions.* No one
is going to do this for us; we must do this for ourselves.* Pension
legislation must include provisions to save the pensions at United
Airlines.

Here is what is happening in Congress according to our sources:

On the Senate side the Senate Finance and the Senate Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions Committees each have released pension reform
legislation.* The Chairmen and the Ranking Members of both of these
committees are now in negotiations to consolidate these two pieces of
proposed legislation into one bill that they can introduce to the
Senate. Neither one of these proposals have any provisions that will
help United Airlines.* It is up to us to contact them and demand that
United Airlines be included in any remedy.

On the House side the House Ways and Means Committee is still in the
process of formulating their legislative pension reform.* We must again
contact all the members of the House Ways and Means Committee and
emphasize that United Airlines must be included in their legislation.

Compose your letter to be one page maximum.* It does not have to be a
literary masterpiece, but your letter should include: ³Any pension
legislation must include provisions to save the pensions at United
Airlines.²

We need a large number of letters; please encourage your friends and
family to join you in writing.

*

*

*

Points you may also wish to include:

* The pilot¹s pension plan at United has not been terminated.

* Stop the exploitation of the PBGC¹s termination insurance program by
the airlines in bankruptcy.

The PBGC should not be used as a business reorganization tool.

The PBGC is already insolvent and the crisis is worsening.

Any legislation MUST include United Airlines, to do otherwise would be
extremely unfair.

The spending and voting habits of hundreds of thousands of Americans
will be determined by the actions of Congress.

Please Fax your letters to the following offices and follow up with a
phone call:

Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Contact Information:

Majority (Republicans)
Minority (Democrats)

Committee Office:
Dirksen Senate Office Building 428
Dirksen Senate Office Building 646

Committee Phone:
202-224-5375
202-224-5465

Committee FAX:
202-224-6510
202-224-5128

Member Name
DC Phone
DC FAX


Michael Enzi (R-WY) [Chairman]
202-224-3424
202-228-0359


Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) [Ranking Member]
202-224-4543
202-224-2417












Senate Committee on Finance

Contact Information:

Majority (Republicans)
Minority (Democrats)

Committee Office:
Dirksen Senate Office Building 219
Hart Senate Office Building 203

Committee Phone:
202-224-4515
202-224-7800

Committee FAX:
202-228-0554
202-228-3904

Member Names:
DC Phone
DC FAX

Charles E. Grassley (R-IA) [Chairman]
202-224-3744
202-224-6020

Max Baucus (D-MT) [Ranking Member]
202-224-2651
202-224-4700


House Committee on Ways and Means (Please contact ALL members):

Contact Information:

Majority (Republicans)
Minority (Democrats)

Committee Office:
Longworth House Office Building 1102
Longworth House Office Building 1106

Committee Phone:
202-225-3625
202-225-4021

Committee FAX:
202-225-2610
202-225-5680


Committee Membership:

Majority Member Name (24)
DC Phone
DC FAX

William M. Thomas (R-CA) [Chairman]
202-225-2915
202-225-8798

E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL)
202-225-3026
202-225-8398

Nancy L. Johnson (R-CT)
202-225-4476
202-225-4488

Wally Herger (R-CA)
202-225-3076
202-226-0852

Jim McCrery (R-LA)
202-225-2777
202-225-8039

Dave Camp (R-MI)
202-225-3561
202-225-9679

Jim Ramstad (R-MN)
202-225-2871
202-225-6351

Jim Nussle (R-IA)
202-225-2911
563-927-5087

Sam Johnson (R-TX)
202-225-4201
202-225-1485

Phil English (R-PA)
202-225-5406
202-225-3103

J. D. Hayworth (R-AZ)
202-225-2190
202-225-3263

Gerald C. (Jerry) Weller (R-IL)
202-225-3635
202-225-3521

Kenny C. Hulshof (R-MO)
202-225-2956
202-225-5712

Ron Lewis (R-KY)
202-225-3501
202-226-2019

Mark Foley (R-FL)
202-225-5792
202-225-3132

Kevin Brady (R-TX)
202-225-4901
202-225-5524

Thomas M. Reynolds (R-NY)
202-225-5265
202-225-5910

Paul Ryan (R-WI)
202-225-3031
202-225-3393

Eric I. Cantor (R-VA)
202-225-2815
202-225-0011

John Linder (R-GA)
202-225-4272
202-225-4696

Melissa A. Hart (R-PA)
202-225-2565
202-226-2274

Bob Beauprez (R-CO)
202-225-2645
202-225-5278

Chris Chocola (R-IN)
202-225-3915
202-225-6798

Devin Nunes (R-CA)
202-225-2523
202-225-3404


Minority Member Name (17)
DC Phone
DC FAX

Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) [Ranking Minority Member]
202-225-4365
202-225-0816

Fortney (Pete) Stark (D-CA)
202-225-5065
202-226-3805

Sander M. Levin (D-MI)
202-225-4961
202-226-1033

Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD)
202-225-4016
202-225-9219

Jim McDermott (D-WA)
202-225-3106
202-225-6197

John Lewis (D-GA)
202-225-3801
202-225-0351

Richard E. Neal (D-MA)
202-225-5601
202-225-8112

Michael R. McNulty (D-NY)
202-225-5076
202-225-5077

William J. Jefferson (D-LA)
202-225-6636
202-225-1988

John S. Tanner (D-TN)
202-225-4714
202-225-1765

Xavier Becerra (D-CA)
202-225-6235
202-225-2202

Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)
202-225-4865
202-225-3073

Earl Pomeroy (D-ND)
202-225-2611
202-226-0893

Stephanie T. Jones (D-OH)
202-225-7032
202-225-1339

Mike Thompson (D-CA)
202-225-3311
202-225-4335

John Larson (D-CT)
202-225-2265
202-225-1031

Rahm Emanuel (D-IL)
202-225-4061
202-225-5603

Also please write your own Congressman and your two Senators. Special
attention should be given to Senators from California and Illinois where
large concentrations of United employees and retirees reside:

Senator Dianne Feinstein
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-0504

(202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954

Senator Barbara Boxer

112 Hart Senate Office Bldg.

Washington, DC 20510

(202) 224-3553

Fax: (415) 956-6701

Senator Dick Durbin

332 Dirksen Senate Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

(202) 224-2152
Fax: (202) 228-0400

Senator Barack Obama
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-2854
Fax: (202) 228-4260

[Newps]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> A neighbor, who is UAL (ret) asked me to circulate this one.
>
> They make some pretty good points, as the UAL people currently stand to
> get reamed pretty badly.
>
> *****************
>
> Due to the bankruptcies of Delta and Northwest there is a very strong
> call in Washington for immediate pension relief. The problem is the
> relief as proposed WILL DO NOTHING to help save the pensions at United
> Airlines.
>
> If you think it is unfair that Congress changes the law now to help
> Delta and Northwest without including United Airlines then you must join
> us now. Write to demand that any pension legislation must include
> provisions to save the pensions at United Airlines.




If you're going to bail out United too, then how about Continental and
the others?

[Aluckyguess]

Not that I dont feel bad for all the union workers and their pensions, but I
also feel bad for all the people who lost money with enron.
I am paying a 1000 a month for medical insurance, you think we could pass a
bill to help pay for that. I dont know where all this money is goin come
from, but I guess we will worry about that later.
My 401k took quite a hit when the market crashed you think we could pass a
bill for that also.
You all new this was coming it was just a matter of when. Its time to stop
the bailouts.

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
>> A neighbor, who is UAL (ret) asked me to circulate this one.
>>
>> They make some pretty good points, as the UAL people currently stand to
>> get reamed pretty badly.
>>
>> *****************
>>
>> Due to the bankruptcies of Delta and Northwest there is a very strong
>> call in Washington for immediate pension relief. The problem is the
>> relief as proposed WILL DO NOTHING to help save the pensions at United
>> Airlines.
>>
>> If you think it is unfair that Congress changes the law now to help
>> Delta and Northwest without including United Airlines then you must join
>> us now. Write to demand that any pension legislation must include
>> provisions to save the pensions at United Airlines.
>
>
>
>
> If you're going to bail out United too, then how about Continental and the
> others?

[Jim Burns]

Yeah... ok... next time somebody makes me a promise and I'm dumb enough to
trust them with my future instead of relying upon myself, when they don't
follow through with their promise for what ever reason, I'll go crying to
the government. yeah, right. OR, going way out on a limb here and doing
some real radical thinking, I could take some of my overpaid wages that they
gave me for my underperformance and incompetence and sock them away any way
I choose so I would have nobody to blame but myself. But that wouldn't be
very New Age American, would it?

Ask the victims of Katrina to call their congressmen to help UAL pensioners.
Ask our troops in Iraq to call.
Ask the widows and the family members that have lost loved ones in either
event to call.

Don't ask me.

Jim

[Carl Ellis]

Closing the door after the cow leaves, but ...

The government needs to throw the *******s who underfunded the pension plan
in prison. After that, no executive will consider letting a plan get in
that position.


- Carl -

[RomeoMike]

I have some empathy for these people, but they are not high on my list
of deserving victims. It's interesting that people want the government
out of their lives until they need something; then it's a run for the
taxpayers handout. Let this group of people ask the unions to make up
their pensions, IMO.



Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> A neighbor, who is UAL (ret) asked me to circulate this one.
>
> They make some pretty good points, as the UAL people currently stand to
> get reamed pretty badly.
>
> *****************
x: (202) 228-4260

[sfb]

I suggest you lock up the Congress critters as UAL and the other legacy
carriers are only doing what the law permits. If they were ignoring the
law, the SEC would have done a number on them long ago for incorrect
financial reporting by a public company.

"Carl Ellis" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Closing the door after the cow leaves, but ...
>
> The government needs to throw the *******s who underfunded the pension
> plan
> in prison. After that, no executive will consider letting a plan get
> in
> that position.
>
>
> - Carl -

[[email protected]]

And what about USAirways' pensions. They got wiped out in the last
round of Ch. 11. Will this bring those back too?

[Skylune]

I assume your impassioned cry also extends to Enron employees, and will
extend to the Ford and GM employees if their pension/financial cause a
Chapter 11 filing. I assume you want taxpayer bailouts for all bankruptcy
filings, right, or just for the commercial airlines?

(The same airlines that argue -- correctly --- that they are subsidizing
GA).

[Robert M. Gary]

Is your proposal to not allow the airline to get out of its pension
obligation and instead just disolve under its financial obligations?
What is the difference to the retired? Either way, the feds have to
take over the pension fund and the retired get less. Letting the
airline go out of business doesn't change anything. Maybe you should
point the finger at the unions that created an unrealistic pension to
begin with and didn't allow changes to the program as discount airlines
ate their shorts.

It seems like your proposal not only kills the pension but also the
investors (most of which are retirement funds). If you work towards a
structured retirement you know that its only as good as the company
itself. No one would have an expectation otherwise. My current
employeer has a structures retirement program and we're fighting to
kill it. Once it goes away the IRS will let us make real contributions
to personal IRAs.

-Robert

[Aluckyguess]

"Carl Ellis" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Closing the door after the cow leaves, but ...
>
> The government needs to throw the *******s who underfunded the pension
> plan
> in prison. After that, no executive will consider letting a plan get in
> that position.
>
>
> - Carl -
Agreed, life in prison that would fix the problem. Throw the union leaders
in also. They are supposed to do something for their members.

[Montblack]

("Robert M. Gary" wrote)
[snip]
> Maybe you should point the finger at the unions that created an
> unrealistic pension to
> begin with and didn't allow changes to the program as discount airlines
> ate their shorts.


Discount airlines ate their shorts because of bad management decisions not
related to pension costs.

Shall we also talk about "unrealistic" management compensation packages?


Montblack

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> Who is going to pay for all of the people who lose their pension, as they
> get aged, and were planing to live off it? You and I, the younger worker,
> one way or the other.
>

Yes, because money will be taken from us unlawfully and given to them. So
what good are laws?

[Montblack]

("sfb" wrote)
>I suggest you lock up the Congress critters as UAL and the other legacy
>carriers are only doing what the law permits. If they were ignoring the
>law, the SEC would have done a number on them long ago for incorrect
>financial reporting by a public company.


25% of this country's economic problems can be directly traced back to the
SEC and their inability to come up with clear accounting rules - and then
enforce them in any meaningful way. [Cite? Me]

Agreed on point A: Pensions should be off limits to Lee Iacocca CEO types.
Over funded
my ass -- for today maybe. How about in 12 years? Oops, a turn around in the
numbers? "Congress" (meaning you$$ you$$ you$$ and you$$) ..."help!!"


Montblack

[sfb]

What bad management decisions? Airline management has about three basic
decisions - planes to fly, routes to fly, and how much to pay their
employees. The legacy carriers are paying about 2 cents per seat per
mile more for labor than the discount airlines. Some of that difference
is pension costs.

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Robert M. Gary" wrote)
> [snip]
>> Maybe you should point the finger at the unions that created an
>> unrealistic pension to
>> begin with and didn't allow changes to the program as discount
>> airlines ate their shorts.
>
>
> Discount airlines ate their shorts because of bad management decisions
> not related to pension costs.
>
> Shall we also talk about "unrealistic" management compensation
> packages?
>
>
> Montblack

[Morgans]

"sfb" > wrote in message news:luAXe.1713$Az1.376@trnddc07...
> I suggest you lock up the Congress critters as UAL and the other legacy
> carriers are only doing what the law permits. If they were ignoring the
> law, the SEC would have done a number on them long ago for incorrect
> financial reporting by a public company.

I think that the time has come and past, where companies can so easily dodge
a pension plan's obligations. There should be laws passed to protect all
pension plans, by holding them in trust, or whatever means are necessary.
Allowing them to dodge them is, IMHO, a breach of contract.

Who is going to pay for all of the people who lose their pension, as they
get aged, and were planing to live off it? You and I, the younger worker,
one way or the other.
--
Jim in NC

[Montblack]

("sfb" wrote)
> What bad management decisions? Airline management has about three basic
> decisions - planes to fly, routes to fly, and how much to pay their
> employees. The legacy carriers are paying about 2 cents per seat per mile
> more for labor than the discount airlines. Some of that difference is
> pension costs.


Is this out of 37 cents per seat mile or 5 cents per seat mile? Curious.

Is it 3% more or 28% more?

To the larger point: Management, itself, is one of those "basic" decisions -
what type of management will we be? It snowballs from there...

Pension funds, fuel prices, gate fees, lawsuits, rising interest rates,
health care costs, advertising, weather on the east coast <g>, changing
travel habits, Internet integration, oil hedge funds, stock prices, logos
....I'd say (a good) management had better be able to juggle them ALL.

Heck, I can juggle just three balls at once.


Montblack

[Jon A]

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 21:57:39 -0700, "Aluckyguess" >
wrote:

>Not that I dont feel bad for all the union workers and their pensions, but I
>also feel bad for all the people who lost money with enron.
> I am paying a 1000 a month for medical insurance, you think we could pass a
>bill to help pay for that. I dont know where all this money is goin come
>from, but I guess we will worry about that later.
>My 401k took quite a hit when the market crashed you think we could pass a
>bill for that also.
>You all new this was coming it was just a matter of when. Its time to stop
>the bailouts.

You guys don't get it, do you? You're not allowed to complain about
life unless you're an airline pilot. Those poor souls really know
what it is to be down on their luck. So next time you selfishly think
about your own troubles, folks in dire need, or old people who have to
eat dog food to afford their meds, consider those who have been less
fortunate in life than you have, namely airline pilots.

And personally, I don't think Congress should bail any of those
*******s out. ****-poor management, leveraging, allowing unions to
get what they want for years, big bonus money for the upper crust,
etc., etc., etc. UAL? Jesus Christ, the employees own the company
and now they're looking for a handout?

One word - Southwest!

[[email protected]]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> A neighbor, who is UAL (ret) asked me to circulate this one.
>
> They make some pretty good points, as the UAL people currently stand to
> get reamed pretty badly.
>

They do? Not half as badly as a lot of much poorer people got reamed on
the Gulf Coast earlier this month.

I'll bet a good survey would show that these guys by and large are in
the upper 10-15% of net worth between real estate, investments, and the
like. Are you going to see retired UAL pilots selling their houses on
golf courses? No doubt. Are you going to see retired UAL pilots in soup
kitchens? Pretty unlikely on a $50k/year pension.

As far as I'm concerned, that's where my responsibility ends. I'm 29
and can make a very good income and would still struggle to raise a
family and put a few bucks in the bank so I have something to fall back
on when I don't collect the pension I never had and Social Security
raises the retirement age to one day short of my life expectancy. Oh,
and now we're going to buy you all prescription drugs, too. Wunderbar!
When do I get my handout?

[[email protected]]

Jon A wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 21:57:39 -0700, "Aluckyguess" >
> wrote:
>
> >Not that I dont feel bad for all the union workers and their pensions, but I
> >also feel bad for all the people who lost money with enron.
> > I am paying a 1000 a month for medical insurance, you think we could pass a
> >bill to help pay for that. I dont know where all this money is goin come
> >from, but I guess we will worry about that later.
> >My 401k took quite a hit when the market crashed you think we could pass a
> >bill for that also.
> >You all new this was coming it was just a matter of when. Its time to stop
> >the bailouts.
>
> You guys don't get it, do you? You're not allowed to complain about
> life unless you're an airline pilot. Those poor souls really know
> what it is to be down on their luck. So next time you selfishly think
> about your own troubles, folks in dire need, or old people who have to
> eat dog food to afford their meds, consider those who have been less
> fortunate in life than you have, namely airline pilots.
>
> And personally, I don't think Congress should bail any of those
> *******s out. ****-poor management, leveraging, allowing unions to
> get what they want for years, big bonus money for the upper crust,
> etc., etc., etc. UAL? Jesus Christ, the employees own the company
> and now they're looking for a handout?
>
> One word - Southwest!

I saw a news article linked from AvWeb earlier today that said that SWA
had over the past five years gone way out on a limb buying hedged fuel
contracts, such that their fuel price was equivalent to $25/bbl oil.
Same old, same old problem: the airlines are too big to fail. No
smaller business could f--- up this bad and stay out of Chapter 7...

[Robert M. Gary]

Carl Ellis wrote:
> Closing the door after the cow leaves, but ...
>
> The government needs to throw the *******s who underfunded the pension plan
> in prison. After that, no executive will consider letting a plan get in
> that position.

Sounds like you are talking about the unions. The unions struck in
order to get this pension that UAL couldn't afford. However, you don't
know if it was underfunded BEFORE or AFTER the discount carriers ate
their lunch.

-Robert

[Carl Ellis]

> Sounds like you are talking about the unions. The unions struck in
> order to get this pension that UAL couldn't afford. However, you don't
> know if it was underfunded BEFORE or AFTER the discount carriers ate
> their lunch.
>

It's a pretty safe bet that it was underfunded well before. There not many
companies that fully fund the pensions - simply because they don't have to.

An intersting note is that company executives usually don't get personally
bit by the pension disasters. Their plans are often seperately and fully
funded.

[sfb]

By law a pension fund can't be underfunded. The problem is the actuarial
assumptions haven't been coming true especially the estimates on
investments of the pension fund.

The airlines are just the tip of the iceberg. There many local and state
government pension funds are also underfunded. You might be able to sell
some airplanes to fund the pensions, but who wants to buy a school?

"Carl Ellis" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Sounds like you are talking about the unions. The unions struck in
>> order to get this pension that UAL couldn't afford. However, you
>> don't
>> know if it was underfunded BEFORE or AFTER the discount carriers ate
>> their lunch.
>>
>
> It's a pretty safe bet that it was underfunded well before. There not
> many
> companies that fully fund the pensions - simply because they don't
> have to.
>
> An intersting note is that company executives usually don't get
> personally
> bit by the pension disasters. Their plans are often seperately and
> fully
> funded.

[Capt.Doug]

>"Morgans" wrote in message > I think that the time has come and past, where
companies can >so easily dodge
> a pension plan's obligations. There should be laws passed to protect all
> pension plans, by holding them in trust, or whatever means are necessary.
> Allowing them to dodge them is, IMHO, a breach of contract.

There ARE laws in place. And there are a few Congress critters who exercise
intelligence of a higher order. A couple of them wrote guidelines for
'defined contribution plans (401k)'. Most workers with defined benefit plans
scoffed at 401k plans, but 401Ks aren't looking so bad now. Which plan do
the profitable carriers offer?

D.

[Blanche]

Let's remember that the majority of those who are losing in the
UAL pension debacle are NOT the senior pilots. They are the
mechanics, the flight attendants (who NEVER joined into the
"employee owned" mantra), the gate people, baggage handlers,
the admin staff (usually not union), and so on.

[Jon A]

On 19 Sep 2005 16:13:16 -0700, wrote:

>>
>> One word - Southwest!
>
>I saw a news article linked from AvWeb earlier today that said that SWA
>had over the past five years gone way out on a limb buying hedged fuel
>contracts, such that their fuel price was equivalent to $25/bbl oil.
>Same old, same old problem: the airlines are too big to fail. No
>smaller business could f--- up this bad and stay out of Chapter 7...

Is buying futures on fuel a risk? Sure! Is it good business? Sure!
Is this what managers are supposed to do for the money they knock
down? Sure! I'm positive that SWA has their share of prick moments,
but they seem to be making money, don't they?

[Mike Rapoport]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("sfb" wrote)
>>I suggest you lock up the Congress critters as UAL and the other legacy
>>carriers are only doing what the law permits. If they were ignoring the
>>law, the SEC would have done a number on them long ago for incorrect
>>financial reporting by a public company.
>
>
> 25% of this country's economic problems can be directly traced back to the
> SEC and their inability to come up with clear accounting rules - and then
> enforce them in any meaningful way. [Cite? Me]
>
> Agreed on point A: Pensions should be off limits to Lee Iacocca CEO types.
> Over funded
> my ass -- for today maybe. How about in 12 years? Oops, a turn around in
> the
> numbers? "Congress" (meaning you$$ you$$ you$$ and you$$) ..."help!!"
>
>
> Montblack
>

The company has an obligation to provide benefits and has to fund the plan
to provide for those benefits. Overfunding belongs to the Company.

Mike
MU-2

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
utaviation.com>,
"Skylune" > downed another beer, wet the bed
and scribbled:

> I assume your impassioned cry also extends to Enron employees, and will
> extend to the Ford and GM employees if their pension/financial cause a
> Chapter 11 filing. I assume you want taxpayer bailouts for all bankruptcy
> filings, right, or just for the commercial airlines?
>
> (The same airlines that argue -- correctly --- that they are subsidizing
> GA).

WRONG! Ga happens to use a system designed to the airlines' specs -- it
was never designed for GA in the first place.

GA does not need Class B/C airspace (nor even a lot of Class D, for that
matter). We don't need 8 ft thick, 10,000 ft long runways; we don't
need baggage handling equipment; we don't need the security arrangements
that airlines require.

Once again, "Skyloser" strikes out!

[Montblack]

("Mike Rapoport" wrote)
> The company has an obligation to provide benefits and has to fund the plan
> to provide for those benefits. Overfunding belongs to the Company.


Agreed - however on the back end, not the front end based on outmoded
projections.


Montblack

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>
> (The same airlines that argue -- correctly --- that they are subsidizing
> GA).
>

Please explain how airlines subsidize GA.

[[email protected]]

Blanche wrote:
> Let's remember that the majority of those who are losing in the
> UAL pension debacle are NOT the senior pilots. They are the
> mechanics, the flight attendants (who NEVER joined into the
> "employee owned" mantra), the gate people, baggage handlers,
> the admin staff (usually not union), and so on.

It's not quite that simple. The PBGC will not guarantee over ~$50k/year
in pension payments, and it's mostly pilots who are getting payments
above that range. There is pain being distributed throughout the
organization, but the mechanics, FAs, etc are losing proportionately a
lot less than the upper-tier pilots.

Also, I read somewhere that around 1/3 of UAL's pension funds were
non-guaranteed funds (meaning UAL opted to not pay to insure them
through PBGC) which is a pretty high percentage. This was not a secret
nor were the under-fundings that had been going on for years. Frankly,
UAL's unions were so uniquely obnoxious that I can't excuse them from
culpability for all this. That place was a roaring party when times
were good but hangovers are a bitch.

-cwk.

[Robert M. Gary]

> Discount airlines ate their shorts because of bad management decisions not
related to pension costs

I'm not sure what your point is. The airline couldn't compete against
the discouts, the reason makes no difference. If management is good,
employees don't mind enjoying the benefits of that, if management is
bad you have to accept it. Remeber that the purpose of a company IS NOT
to provide employement to people. People work for a company for as long
as it benefits the company. If you don't like that, seek out a
socialist place to lay your head.


BTW: The reason UAL filed bankruptcy was to avoid having to make their
next massive payment to the pension fund. No one would argue that
without the pension/benefits program of an "old school" airline UAL
woudln't be in the situation it is in now.
-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

> (The same airlines that argue -- correctly --- that they are subsidizing
GA).


Huh??? If that's true, lets reduce some costs NOW. First, get rid of
class A airspace. We don't need that, just make it class E all the way
up; two controllers for the entire U.S. should cover it. Get rid of
class B and class C airports. Close some and make others class D
(getting rid of a dozen approach controllers each). Next, shorten all
runways to 6,000 feet or less and sell off the extra land. Reduce the
number of parking spots (land cost) of all airports to no more than 100
spaces and sell off land. Gee, we can take most of the cost out and we
won't even feel it!! You can pretty much fire all clearance delivery
and ground controllers as well. We could get along just fine without
them too we don't have enough IFR traffic that we couldn't just use
tower to issue clearances.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

> The problem is the actuarial
> assumptions haven't been coming true especially the estimates on
> investments of the pension f

Many of those assumptions were used by the unions to argue for their
massive benefits program. Supply and Demand work wonderfully. Putting a
union in there messes with that (almost by definition). W/O the union,
the airlines would have paid exactly what was necessary to get the
quality of employees they needed, and no more.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

> Shall we also talk about "unrealistic" management compensation packages?

Who cares? The owners of the company (elected board of directors)
decided what was necessary to pay the execs. Its not like there are
execs out there waiting to be hired. Execs that can run a large company
are like NFL quarterbacks. There aren't many of them and they demand a
high package or they'll just go somewhere else. The owners of the
company have to decide how much they are willing to pay them. What the
owners decided to pay their execs is none of the employees business.
The purpose of the company is to return value to shareholders (owners)
**NOT** to provide employement. If you don't like it, there are still
some communist countries out there for you to choose from.

-Robert

[Aluckyguess]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Discount airlines ate their shorts because of bad management decisions
>> not
> related to pension costs
>
> I'm not sure what your point is. The airline couldn't compete against
> the discouts, the reason makes no difference. If management is good,
> employees don't mind enjoying the benefits of that, if management is
> bad you have to accept it. Remeber that the purpose of a company IS NOT
> to provide employement to people. People work for a company for as long
> as it benefits the company. If you don't like that, seek out a
> socialist place to lay your head.
>
People forget the only reason a company is in business is to make money. The
only reason they hire someone is so they can make money for the company. If
your not needed your gone, if they don't get rid of you eventfully you will
get rid of the company.
If the company stock is traded publicly the only real concern is that it
makes the stock holders money.
>
> BTW: The reason UAL filed bankruptcy was to avoid having to make their
> next massive payment to the pension fund. No one would argue that
> without the pension/benefits program of an "old school" airline UAL
> woudln't be in the situation it is in now.
> -Robert
>

[Robert M. Gary]

> The only reason they hire someone is so they can make money for the company. If
> your not needed your gone, if they don't get rid of you eventfully you will
> get rid of the company.

It's such a beautiful law of nature. However, unions alter it and can
only result in a less than perfect outcome. Companies make money by
retaining (i.e. compensating) the best people and getting rid of the
dead weight. Unions are the equalizers and prevent the best employees
from getting their share so the dead weight can be carried. When they
increase the pay above what the company needs to pay to get the people
they need, they create a shortage of employment (i.e. a surplus of
applicants). So you have people who want to work for the company but
can't because there is a waiting list and the normal supply/demand of
the employment market have been broken.

-Robert

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article . com>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> > Shall we also talk about "unrealistic" management compensation packages?
>
> Who cares? The owners of the company (elected board of directors)
> decided what was necessary to pay the execs. Its not like there are
> execs out there waiting to be hired. Execs that can run a large company
> are like NFL quarterbacks. There aren't many of them and they demand a
> high package or they'll just go somewhere else. The owners of the
> company have to decide how much they are willing to pay them. What the
> owners decided to pay their execs is none of the employees business.
> The purpose of the company is to return value to shareholders (owners)
> **NOT** to provide employement. If you don't like it, there are still
> some communist countries out there for you to choose from.
>
> -Robert

I'm not so sure that execs are that rare -- so many of them screw up so
many times and, then go off to other companies and ruin them, too.

The boards of directors appear to have an incestuous relationship with
each other and with other companies, allowing the above phenomenon.

Case in point: TWA cancelled the NY-Frankfort run because "the load
factor showed no increase." Fact is, the load factor was 100% and could
not increase!

What company needs 17 levels of vice president, including "vice
president of wines and cheeses?"

[Montblack]

("Robert M. Gary" wrote)
[snip]
>> Shall we also talk about "unrealistic" management compensation packages?

> The owners of the company have to decide how much they are willing to pay
> them. What the
> owners decided to pay their execs is none of the employees business.
> The purpose of the company is to return value to shareholders (owners)
> **NOT** to provide employement. If you don't like it, there are still
> some communist countries out there for you to choose from.


You and I see a different America. Not so much Red and Blue, but rather the
Gilded Age (with an occasional Homestead Mill thrown in) vs. the stabilizing
force of a strong middle class ...1935-1985.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegie/sfeature/mh_horror.html

Al Checchi took over 1 Billion (with a B) dollars out of NWA when he left -
clearly his hand picked Board of Directors was on the ball with that one -
returning value to investors and all. Checchi left when NWA was in the mid
$70's. Then it slid to the $50's, $40's, then $20's, (9/11) in the $teens,
then $7, then $2 ....then zip.


Montblack
The Copper Bosses killed you Joe,
they shot you Joe" says I.
Takes more than guns to kill a man
Says Joe "I didn't die"
Says Joe "I didn't die"

[Robert M. Gary]

> I'm not so sure that execs are that rare -- so many of them screw up so
> many times and, then go off to other companies and ruin them, too.

Same can be said about quarterbacks. In the end the board must decide
they are worth the money.

> The boards of directors appear to have an incestuous relationship with
> each other and with other companies, allowing the above phenomenon.

The board are elected by the owners. If the board is not acting in the
best interest of the owners they should be voted off (and actually can
face large civil penalties). Companies are mostly owned by mutual fund
managers and portfolio companies. Those managers are paid SOLEY on the
return the portfolio they put together returns. There is no room for
"friends". I'm not going to keep my money in a fund that isn't
performing.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

> Al Checchi took over 1 Billion (with a B) dollars out of NWA when he left -
> clearly his hand picked Board of Directors was on the ball with that one -

That sucks, and the owners should fire the board. But that is a private
decision between the board and the owners (actually public in this case
because of the voting), but it has nothing to do with employees.
Employees work for a company so long as they can add value. When a
company goes belly up, the environment in which the employee can add
value goes away and therefore, the employee should go away. This
natural supply/demand and laws of economics ensure the employee is most
productive (in this case, moving to a company where they can be more
productive). If I over pay my top employees that's my decision, it has
nothing to do with guarantying employment for my employees. Owners will
not want to over pay their employees (CEOs or otherwise) but sometimes
unions push them into it.

-Robert

[sfb]

Didn't Checchi get the money from the stock market and not from NWA?
Wasn't the point of the post you snipped that the market value collapsed
after Checchi left? The politicians in the People's Republic of
Minnesota would have been screaming bloody murder if had raided the
corporate coffers.

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Al Checchi took over 1 Billion (with a B) dollars out of NWA when he
>> left -
>> clearly his hand picked Board of Directors was on the ball with that
>> one -
>
> That sucks, and the owners should fire the board. But that is a
> private
> decision between the board and the owners (actually public in this
> case
> because of the voting), but it has nothing to do with employees.
> Employees work for a company so long as they can add value. When a
> company goes belly up, the environment in which the employee can add
> value goes away and therefore, the employee should go away. This
> natural supply/demand and laws of economics ensure the employee is
> most
> productive (in this case, moving to a company where they can be more
> productive). If I over pay my top employees that's my decision, it has
> nothing to do with guarantying employment for my employees. Owners
> will
> not want to over pay their employees (CEOs or otherwise) but sometimes
> unions push them into it.
>
> -Robert
>

[Jon A]

On 20 Sep 2005 11:24:48 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote:

>> The only reason they hire someone is so they can make money for the company. If
>> your not needed your gone, if they don't get rid of you eventfully you will
>> get rid of the company.
>
>It's such a beautiful law of nature. However, unions alter it and can
>only result in a less than perfect outcome. Companies make money by
>retaining (i.e. compensating) the best people and getting rid of the
>dead weight. Unions are the equalizers and prevent the best employees
>from getting their share so the dead weight can be carried. When they
>increase the pay above what the company needs to pay to get the people
>they need, they create a shortage of employment (i.e. a surplus of
>applicants). So you have people who want to work for the company but
>can't because there is a waiting list and the normal supply/demand of
>the employment market have been broken.
>
>-Robert

Spewing ignorance such as the above is the same as saying every
republican is a conservative money grubbing scumbag and every democrat
a liberal faggot. Unions are there to protect the working class from
unfair management practices, which unfortunately shows their true
colors. SWA has a union. They're making money! Why? Can't it be
done? How did we ever exist for 100 years with those damn unions?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jon A" > wrote in message
...
>
> Unions are there to protect the working class from
> unfair management practices, which unfortunately shows their true
> colors.
>

What unfair management practices?

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Jon A >
wrote:

> Unions are there to protect the working class

true.

What prevents unions from abusing the workers or the company?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Matt Barrow]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> > Discount airlines ate their shorts because of bad management decisions
not
> related to pension costs
>
> I'm not sure what your point is. The airline couldn't compete against
> the discouts, the reason makes no difference.

The reason makes all the difference: in short, their level and quality of
service was not all that far removed from the discount carriers.

They could not compete PERIOD. Their management was trained and brought up
in the world a heavy regulation and was thus completely out of the water on
running a competitive enterprise.

Recall, too, that several discount carriers didn't survive either (People
Express, etc).


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[George Patterson]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> Gee, we can take most of the cost out and we
> won't even feel it!!

And you haven't even considered maintenance. By the time one of those 8' thick
runways needs resurfacing, we'll probably have anti-gravity systems and won't
need 'em. Hey, some of the old WW II bases are still in good shape after serving
all this time as GA fields.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[George Patterson]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> They could not compete PERIOD. Their management was trained and brought up
> in the world a heavy regulation and was thus completely out of the water on
> running a competitive enterprise.

I think you've hit the main reason. As they grow, companies develop a "corporate
culture" caused by the fact that existing managers tend to promote people who do
things the same way they do. As time goes on, this "culture" may get out of
touch with reality. About the only thing that will change it is a hostile takeover.

I saw this in action at my former place of employ. The company started out
developing projects on a "cost-plus" basis, with money being fronted in advance.
They were put up for sale about 15 years ago and were supposed to develop
competitive practices, but they're still struggling with that. The old "who's
going to fund this" attitude continued to work with their new owner for long
enough that they never got out of it.

They have another new owner now. The CEO just got handed his walking papers.
There's still a little hope.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Aluckyguess]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> The only reason they hire someone is so they can make money for the
>> company. If
>> your not needed your gone, if they don't get rid of you eventfully you
>> will
>> get rid of the company.
>
> It's such a beautiful law of nature. However, unions alter it and can
> only result in a less than perfect outcome. Companies make money by
> retaining (i.e. compensating) the best people and getting rid of the
> dead weight. Unions are the equalizers and prevent the best employees
> from getting their share so the dead weight can be carried. When they
> increase the pay above what the company needs to pay to get the people
> they need, they create a shortage of employment (i.e. a surplus of
> applicants). So you have people who want to work for the company but
> can't because there is a waiting list and the normal supply/demand of
> the employment market have been broken.
>
> -Robert
>
You are 100% right. This is especially true with highly skilled labor. The
company has to keep the duds because of seniority this lets the cream of the
crop go to other company's. The more skilled one is the less he needs the
union. I have always thought the union protects the lazy and stupid.
Now I am not saying their are a lot of smart hard working union members and
some companies use the union to their advantage. Their are also a lot of bad
run companies with or without the union.

[Montblack]

("sfb" wrote)
> Didn't Checchi get the money from the stock market and not from NWA?
> Wasn't the point of the post you snipped that the market value collapsed
> after Checchi left? The politicians in the People's Republic of Minnesota
> would have been screaming bloody murder if had raided the corporate
> coffers.


Where did Checchi get the stock? NWA.
How did he finance his takeover? NWA operating money.
How did he get paid before he bailed with his stock? Staggering management
fees payed by NWA monies - No, I didn't say profits.

Checchi raided the coffers of the State too. Loans, bailouts, building
projects, etc.

Billion dollars would have bought a few extra planes.


Montblack

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:122Ye.8139$LV5.1123@trndny02...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>> They could not compete PERIOD. Their management was trained and brought
>> up
>> in the world a heavy regulation and was thus completely out of the water
>> on
>> running a competitive enterprise.
>
> I think you've hit the main reason. As they grow, companies develop a
> "corporate culture" caused by the fact that existing managers tend to
> promote people who do things the same way they do. As time goes on, this
> "culture" may get out of touch with reality. About the only thing that
> will change it is a hostile takeover.
>

That's a large factor, but they also get n trouble earlier when they move
out of the enrapreneurial phase and past the growth phase and start hiring
"professional managers" instead of promoting from within. The professionals
are often the ones raised on regulation and bureaucracy. They often do worse
than those who learned the business from the ground up.

A manager who came up with the company is more interested in seeing it
thrive; a "professional" (IME) is mainly concerned with making monthly
numbers, is risk averse and focusing on his bonus.

Look at any of the Fortune level firms that have been around for a hundred
years or more (P&G, for example) and you'll find very few high level people
brought in from outside the company.
--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Jon A]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:33:24 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Jon A" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Unions are there to protect the working class from
>> unfair management practices, which unfortunately shows their true
>> colors.
>>
>
>What unfair management practices?
>
Ones that would be allowed to proliferate if no unions were present.
How about 14 hour work days with no breaks for starters? I really
don't believe that someone who is as learned as you appear to be would
ask that question. Check a history book if you want to know more.

[Jon A]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:32:13 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>In article >, Jon A >
>wrote:
>
>> Unions are there to protect the working class
>
>true.
>
>What prevents unions from abusing the workers or the company?

Unfortunately, the workers themselves must hold the union management
to task. Doesn't work in some instances which seems to be a
commonality within the human race - - - greed!

[John Theune]

Jon A wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:33:24 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>"Jon A" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Unions are there to protect the working class from
>>>unfair management practices, which unfortunately shows their true
>>>colors.
>>>
>>
>>What unfair management practices?
>>
>
> Ones that would be allowed to proliferate if no unions were present.
> How about 14 hour work days with no breaks for starters? I really
> don't believe that someone who is as learned as you appear to be would
> ask that question. Check a history book if you want to know more.
>
Which has been turned into law, so the need for unions to enforce this
has pretty much gone away. What has not gone away is the ability for
unions to backmail companies into agreeing to contracts that cripple
their ability to compete. Unions played a important role in the
creation of fair labor laws to protect workers but the need for them in
that role has passed and now they are hurting the workers more then
helping them as a company that goes out of business employs no one.

[Dave Stadt]

"Jon A" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:32:13 -0400, Bob Noel
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >, Jon A
>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Unions are there to protect the working class
> >
> >true.
> >
> >What prevents unions from abusing the workers or the company?
>
> Unfortunately, the workers themselves must hold the union management
> to task. Doesn't work in some instances which seems to be a
> commonality within the human race - - - greed!

Millions and millions of jobs have left this country due to union
mis-management and greed. For some reason the unions don't mention that
fact.

[Bob Moore]

"Aluckyguess" > wrote

> You are 100% right. This is especially true with highly skilled labor.
> The company has to keep the duds because of seniority(.) this lets the
> cream of the crop go to other company's.(companies) The more skilled one
>is(,) the less he needs the union. I have always thought the union
>protects the lazy and stupid. Now I am not saying their(there) are a lot
>of smart(,) hard working union members and some companies use the union to
>their advantage. Their(There) are also a lot of bad(badly) run companies
>with or without the union.

[sfb]

Aren't you ignoring that part of history where the Federal and many
states enacted labor laws? The unions aren't the only protection the
employee has. Overtime after forty hours is a Federal Law.

"Jon A" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:33:24 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jon A" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> Unions are there to protect the working class from
>>> unfair management practices, which unfortunately shows their true
>>> colors.
>>>
>>
>>What unfair management practices?
>>
> Ones that would be allowed to proliferate if no unions were present.
> How about 14 hour work days with no breaks for starters? I really
> don't believe that someone who is as learned as you appear to be would
> ask that question. Check a history book if you want to know more.
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jon A" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:33:24 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jon A" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> Unions are there to protect the working class from
>>> unfair management practices, which unfortunately shows their true
>>> colors.
>>>
>>
>>What unfair management practices?
>>
> Ones that would be allowed to proliferate if no unions were present.
> How about 14 hour work days with no breaks for starters? I really
> don't believe that someone who is as learned as you appear to be would
> ask that question. Check a history book if you want to know more.
>

While this may have been true in the past the Dept of Labor both of the
federal and state do a pretty damn good job of not allowing this to happen
today.

To say that we need unions to stop this today is like saying we need an
ongoing civil war to make sure we don't have slavery.

[Jim Knoyle]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> news:122Ye.8139$LV5.1123@trndny02...
>> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>
>>> They could not compete PERIOD. Their management was trained and brought
>>> up
>>> in the world a heavy regulation and was thus completely out of the water
>>> on
>>> running a competitive enterprise.
>>
>> I think you've hit the main reason. As they grow, companies develop a
>> "corporate culture" caused by the fact that existing managers tend to
>> promote people who do things the same way they do. As time goes on, this
>> "culture" may get out of touch with reality. About the only thing that
>> will change it is a hostile takeover.
>>
>
> That's a large factor, but they also get n trouble earlier when they move
> out of the enrapreneurial phase and past the growth phase and start hiring
> "professional managers" instead of promoting from within. The
> professionals are often the ones raised on regulation and bureaucracy.
> They often do worse than those who learned the business from the ground
> up.
>
> A manager who came up with the company is more interested in seeing it
> thrive; a "professional" (IME) is mainly concerned with making monthly
> numbers, is risk averse and focusing on his bonus.
>
> Look at any of the Fortune level firms that have been around for a hundred
> years or more (P&G, for example) and you'll find very few high level
> people brought in from outside the company.
> --
> Matt
>
Look further and you will find a once great airline that was more or less
taken over by hotel people and run into the ground.
Also notice that huge (then) golden parachute that one CEO got
when they let him go.
Also notice how they raided the IAM employees overfunded
pension fund for cash to buy another hotel chain.
....and on and on and on.

JK

[Matt Barrow]

"Jon A" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:33:24 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jon A" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> Unions are there to protect the working class from
>>> unfair management practices, which unfortunately shows their true
>>> colors.
>>>
>>
>>What unfair management practices?
>>
> Ones that would be allowed to proliferate if no unions were present.
> How about 14 hour work days with no breaks for starters? I really
> don't believe that someone who is as learned as you appear to be would
> ask that question. Check a history book if you want to know more.
>
Check an objective history book and you'll find that point is rather bogus.

Check further and you'll find that long hours were preferred by many unions
so as to generate overtime.

If businesses did what unions did, they call it collusion. In any endeavor
that unions claimed to have improved the workers situation, take a look back
in that same industry some ten to twenty years and you'll find that things
have already improved dramatically before unions ever showed up at the door.

A good example is so called "child labor", and as my friend says about it
:What do you think those kids were doing before they worked in factories,
playing "tag" all day?

[Matt Barrow]

"Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...

>>
>> Look at any of the Fortune level firms that have been around for a
>> hundred years or more (P&G, for example) and you'll find very few high
>> level people brought in from outside the company.
>> --
>> Matt
>>
> Look further and you will find a once great airline that was more or less
> taken over by hotel people and run into the ground.
> Also notice that huge (then) golden parachute that one CEO got
> when they let him go.
> Also notice how they raided the IAM employees overfunded
> pension fund for cash to buy another hotel chain.
> ...and on and on and on.
>
Proctor and Gamble runs airlines and hotel chains?


--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[George Patterson]

sfb wrote:
>
> Overtime after forty hours is a Federal Law.

Since when? I haven't seen overtime pay for over 15 years.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:fxfYe.9243$i86.3001@trndny01...
> sfb wrote:
>>
>> Overtime after forty hours is a Federal Law.
>
> Since when? I haven't seen overtime pay for over 15 years.
>

Obviously he should have added ... except for certain exempt workers.

[Robert M. Gary]

>Where did Checchi get the stock? NWA.
>How did he finance his takeover? NWA operating money.
>How did he get paid before he bailed with his stock? Staggering management
>fees payed by NWA monies - No, I didn't say profits.

I"m not familiar with the situation but it sounds like he used company
money to buy company stock as leverage? What a beautiful thing. The
only way that works out financially is if the company's assets (cash)
were not being used properly and someone found out that the money was
worth more than the company. The wonderful laws of nature kick in and
someone grabbed the money and moved it to somewhere it could work more
efficiently. That natural laws of nature do not allow companies to hold
assets inefficiently.

-Robert

[sfb]

There are exemptions in the federal law. If you think you are not exempt
from the law, you might want to do some research on the US Department of
Labor web pages at http://www.dol.gov/

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:fxfYe.9243$i86.3001@trndny01...
> sfb wrote:
>>
>> Overtime after forty hours is a Federal Law.
>
> Since when? I haven't seen overtime pay for over 15 years.
>
> George Patterson
> Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person
> to
> use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[George Patterson]

sfb wrote:
> There are exemptions in the federal law.

Thanks for the link. So, they passed that in '96. Can you tell me where to find
the exemption for salaried workers? I'm sure it must be in there somewhere.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Jim Knoyle]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>>
>>> Look at any of the Fortune level firms that have been around for a
>>> hundred years or more (P&G, for example) and you'll find very few high
>>> level people brought in from outside the company.
>>> --
>>> Matt
>>>
>> Look further and you will find a once great airline that was more or less
>> taken over by hotel people and run into the ground.
>> Also notice that huge (then) golden parachute that one CEO got
>> when they let him go.
>> Also notice how they raided the IAM employees overfunded
>> pension fund for cash to buy another hotel chain.
>> ...and on and on and on.
>>
> Proctor and Gamble runs airlines and hotel chains?
>

For Christ sake, the subject is (was) UAL!
Pay attention. But thanks anyway for the good lead in
to something that has had me ****ed for over 20 years.

JK

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:nhgYe.9252$i86.1969@trndny01...
> sfb wrote:
>> There are exemptions in the federal law.
>
> Thanks for the link. So, they passed that in '96. Can you tell me where to
> find the exemption for salaried workers? I'm sure it must be in there
> somewhere.
>


Try this one

http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/whdfs17.htm

[John T]

Montblack wrote:
>
>> The company has an obligation to provide benefits and has to fund
>> the plan to provide for those benefits.
>
> Agreed - however on the back end, not the front end based on outmoded
> projections.

Why does the company have an *obligation* to provide benefits?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[Jon A]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:38:02 GMT, John Theune >
wrote:

>Jon A wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:33:24 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jon A" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>Unions are there to protect the working class from
>>>>unfair management practices, which unfortunately shows their true
>>>>colors.
>>>>
>>>
>>>What unfair management practices?
>>>
>>
>> Ones that would be allowed to proliferate if no unions were present.
>> How about 14 hour work days with no breaks for starters? I really
>> don't believe that someone who is as learned as you appear to be would
>> ask that question. Check a history book if you want to know more.
>>
>Which has been turned into law, so the need for unions to enforce this
>has pretty much gone away. What has not gone away is the ability for
>unions to backmail companies into agreeing to contracts that cripple
>their ability to compete. Unions played a important role in the
>creation of fair labor laws to protect workers but the need for them in
>that role has passed and now they are hurting the workers more then
>helping them as a company that goes out of business employs no one.

Sounds like a pure republican talking.

[Jon A]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:33:10 GMT, "sfb" > wrote:

>Aren't you ignoring that part of history where the Federal and many
>states enacted labor laws? The unions aren't the only protection the
>employee has. Overtime after forty hours is a Federal Law.
>
Another republican!

[Jon A]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:44:15 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote:

>
>"Jon A" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:32:13 -0400, Bob Noel
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >In article >, Jon A
>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> Unions are there to protect the working class
>> >
>> >true.
>> >
>> >What prevents unions from abusing the workers or the company?
>>
>> Unfortunately, the workers themselves must hold the union management
>> to task. Doesn't work in some instances which seems to be a
>> commonality within the human race - - - greed!
>
>Millions and millions of jobs have left this country due to union
>mis-management and greed. For some reason the unions don't mention that
>fact.

Greed on whose part? Are you saying you'll pay $75 for your shirts
rather than $4.99 at Wal Mart? We're all in the same boat, bunky.
Management's job is to find ways to make this work.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jon A" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ones that would be allowed to proliferate if no unions were present.
> How about 14 hour work days with no breaks for starters?
>

Are you saying that without unions we'd have 14 hour work days with no
breaks? Even if that was so, how would it be unfair?


>
> I really don't believe that someone who is as learned as you appear to be
> would
> ask that question.
>

How else can I know what you believe are unfair management practices?


>
> Check a history book if you want to know more.
>

Do you know of any history books that agree with your position?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jon A" > wrote in message
...
>
> Another republican!
>

Are you using "republican" as a synonym of "informed"? You seem to be.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>>>
>>> Look further and you will find a once great airline that was more or
>>> less
>>> taken over by hotel people and run into the ground.
>>> Also notice that huge (then) golden parachute that one CEO got
>>> when they let him go.
>>> Also notice how they raided the IAM employees overfunded
>>> pension fund for cash to buy another hotel chain.
>>> ...and on and on and on.
>>>
>> Proctor and Gamble runs airlines and hotel chains?
>>
>
> For Christ sake, the subject is (was) UAL!
> Pay attention. But thanks anyway for the good lead in
> to something that has had me ****ed for over 20 years.
>
Pay attention yourself; the issue under discussion is HOW the situation came
about.

If you can't handle abstractions (that decidedly and distinctive human
characteristic) then start a sub-thread.

Also, how long has it been since the union owned UAL?

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"John T" > wrote:

> Montblack wrote:
> >
> >> The company has an obligation to provide benefits and has to fund
> >> the plan to provide for those benefits.
> >
> > Agreed - however on the back end, not the front end based on outmoded
> > projections.
>
> Why does the company have an *obligation* to provide benefits?


If they offer benefits as one of the benefits of your working for them,
rather than for a competitor, then renege on the deal after so many
years, you would have a pretty good reason to be upset.

[Dave Stadt]

"Jon A" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:33:10 GMT, "sfb" > wrote:
>
> >Aren't you ignoring that part of history where the Federal and many
> >states enacted labor laws? The unions aren't the only protection the
> >employee has. Overtime after forty hours is a Federal Law.
> >
> Another republican!

Thank goodness!!

[Dave Stadt]

"Jon A" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:44:15 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jon A" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:32:13 -0400, Bob Noel
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article >, Jon A
> >
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Unions are there to protect the working class
> >> >
> >> >true.
> >> >
> >> >What prevents unions from abusing the workers or the company?
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, the workers themselves must hold the union management
> >> to task. Doesn't work in some instances which seems to be a
> >> commonality within the human race - - - greed!
> >
> >Millions and millions of jobs have left this country due to union
> >mis-management and greed. For some reason the unions don't mention that
> >fact.
>
> Greed on whose part? Are you saying you'll pay $75 for your shirts
> rather than $4.99 at Wal Mart? We're all in the same boat, bunky.
> Management's job is to find ways to make this work.

I believe I said greed on the part of unions.
And the solution is to move union manufacturing jobs out of country.
Take a look at union membership numbers for the past 30 years.

[Matt Barrow]

>> Unions are there to protect the working class

Like teachers?


--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "John T" > wrote:
>>
>> Why does the company have an *obligation* to provide benefits?
>
>
> If they offer benefits as one of the benefits of your working for them,
> rather than for a competitor, then renege on the deal after so many
> years, you would have a pretty good reason to be upset.

And a very good reason to go work for their competitor.

(Not to mention start your own business and give yourself infinite benefits)

--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[John Theune]

Jon A wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:38:02 GMT, John Theune >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Jon A wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:33:24 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Jon A" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Unions are there to protect the working class from
>>>>>unfair management practices, which unfortunately shows their true
>>>>>colors.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What unfair management practices?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Ones that would be allowed to proliferate if no unions were present.
>>>How about 14 hour work days with no breaks for starters? I really
>>>don't believe that someone who is as learned as you appear to be would
>>>ask that question. Check a history book if you want to know more.
>>>
>>
>>Which has been turned into law, so the need for unions to enforce this
>>has pretty much gone away. What has not gone away is the ability for
>>unions to backmail companies into agreeing to contracts that cripple
>>their ability to compete. Unions played a important role in the
>>creation of fair labor laws to protect workers but the need for them in
>>that role has passed and now they are hurting the workers more then
>>helping them as a company that goes out of business employs no one.
>
>
> Sounds like a pure republican talking.
>
>
You make it sounds like a bad thing, while I think it's a good thing.
If you would like to rubute my post feel free to, but assigning a
political label to me does not advance the discussion one bit.
John

[Juan Jimenez]

"Jon A" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:38:02 GMT, John Theune >
> wrote:
>
>>Jon A wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:33:24 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Jon A" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>Unions are there to protect the working class from
>>>>>unfair management practices, which unfortunately shows their true
>>>>>colors.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What unfair management practices?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ones that would be allowed to proliferate if no unions were present.
>>> How about 14 hour work days with no breaks for starters? I really
>>> don't believe that someone who is as learned as you appear to be would
>>> ask that question. Check a history book if you want to know more.
>>>
>>Which has been turned into law, so the need for unions to enforce this
>>has pretty much gone away. What has not gone away is the ability for
>>unions to backmail companies into agreeing to contracts that cripple
>>their ability to compete. Unions played a important role in the
>>creation of fair labor laws to protect workers but the need for them in
>>that role has passed and now they are hurting the workers more then
>>helping them as a company that goes out of business employs no one.
>
> Sounds like a pure republican talking.

I think he sounds like reality, and that's no political party. Take te AA
F/A tantrum a while back, when the company was about to file for bankruptcy.
There's only one reason why they did what they did -- because they could, to
stomp on the ground and scream "You brute! You brute! You brute!
Wwwwaaaaaaaa!" What was hilarious to me was their complaining about a
standard practice in companies in trouble who need to keep their key
personnel -- retention bonuses. There's a zillion F/A's out there, and many
more wannabe's on the streets. Finding a top exec or key manager that can
take over a key position when the company is in trouble is damn near
impossible. But of course, expecting a union to recognize this is just as
impossible, especially when hormones, or a lack thereof, get in the way.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"John T" > wrote in message
...
> Montblack wrote:
>>
>>> The company has an obligation to provide benefits and has to fund
>>> the plan to provide for those benefits.
>>
>> Agreed - however on the back end, not the front end based on outmoded
>> projections.
>
> Why does the company have an *obligation* to provide benefits?
>

Because the was the agreement when the employee was hired. If I hired you
and said I would pay you $10.00/hr and then handed you your first week
paycheck and only paid you $9.00/hr how would you feel about that?

[George Patterson]

Matt Barrow wrote:

>>If they offer benefits as one of the benefits of your working for them,
>>rather than for a competitor, then renege on the deal after so many
>>years, you would have a pretty good reason to be upset.
>
> And a very good reason to go work for their competitor.

By that time, it's too late for that to do any good.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:F9AYe.10022$LV5.7416@trndny02...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> >>If they offer benefits as one of the benefits of your working for them,
> >>rather than for a competitor, then renege on the deal after so many
> >>years, you would have a pretty good reason to be upset.
> >
> > And a very good reason to go work for their competitor.
>
> By that time, it's too late for that to do any good.

Why?

And what benefits might they renege on? (I "assume" you're not referring to
a contractual abrogation)

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:X2AYe.70301$7f5.54144@okepread01...
>
> "John T" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Montblack wrote:
> >>
> >>> The company has an obligation to provide benefits and has to fund
> >>> the plan to provide for those benefits.
> >>
> >> Agreed - however on the back end, not the front end based on outmoded
> >> projections.
> >
> > Why does the company have an *obligation* to provide benefits?
> >
>
> Because the was the agreement when the employee was hired. If I hired you
> and said I would pay you $10.00/hr and then handed you your first week
> paycheck and only paid you $9.00/hr how would you feel about that?

I'd feel like telling them to live up to their agreements or I'd take a
walk.

Since only real estate transactions need be in writing, and even dinky jobs
often have written stipulations (not a formal contract, but a written
statement), in many states that would be a violation of state law. In any
case, why would someone be willing to work for such folks?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[George Patterson]

Matt Barrow wrote:

>>By that time, it's too late for that to do any good.
>
> Why?

Let's say you got two job offers in 1984. One company offered you $30,000/year
with a retirement package that would continue to pay you 1/3 my salary if you
retire after 25 years. Another company offered you $32,000/year with no
retirement package. Both companies are assumed to offer similar percentage
raises as time goes on.

You have a choice. Accept the higher paying job and save for retirement or take
the lower paying job and go for the security. You take the security.

Twenty years later, your firm eliminates or heavily curtails the retirement
package (whatever their legal situation allows them to do). It's too late to go
back and get that higher salary that would have allowed you to build your own.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:37BYe.16451$Zg5.9169@trndny05...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> >>By that time, it's too late for that to do any good.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Let's say you got two job offers in 1984. One company offered you
$30,000/year
> with a retirement package that would continue to pay you 1/3 my salary if
you
> retire after 25 years. Another company offered you $32,000/year with no
> retirement package. Both companies are assumed to offer similar percentage
> raises as time goes on.
>
> You have a choice. Accept the higher paying job and save for retirement or
take
> the lower paying job and go for the security. You take the security.

First mistake (actually, first two mistakes).

>
> Twenty years later, your firm eliminates or heavily curtails the
retirement
> package (whatever their legal situation allows them to do). It's too late
to go
> back and get that higher salary that would have allowed you to build your
own.

That's part of the reason why #1 and #2 are mistakes.

Here's one that bit me (kinda) back in 1998: You work for a company for
seven years in which the company retirement plan is the company stock, (you
can ALSO take an independent 401K on your own). You can opt out at any
time, but you're not fully vested until your fifth anniversary. You can
rejoin, but must wait another five years to opt out again.

Company goes belly up, stock value goes from $105 to penny stocks in nine
months time.

Advantage #1: your wife, who works for one of the larger stock brokerage
firms (Investment ANALYST, not a SPECULATOR), has you opt out of the stock
plan after your five year anniversary and divest your portfolio (MSFT,
WALMART, INTEL). You lose only two years of stock value, not seven.

Advantage #2: Learning long before NEVER to trust all/most my funds in the
hands of someone I have no control over.

So many Americans "want their cake and to eat it, too"; it has a tendency to
bite one on the rump...badly.

I can see your scenario, but I also know that "security" is a chimera.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Jim Knoyle]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Look further and you will find a once great airline that was more or
>>>> less
>>>> taken over by hotel people and run into the ground.
>>>> Also notice that huge (then) golden parachute that one CEO got
>>>> when they let him go.
>>>> Also notice how they raided the IAM employees overfunded
>>>> pension fund for cash to buy another hotel chain.
>>>> ...and on and on and on.
>>>>
>>> Proctor and Gamble runs airlines and hotel chains?
>>>
>>
>> For Christ sake, the subject is (was) UAL!
>> Pay attention. But thanks anyway for the good lead in
>> to something that has had me ****ed for over 20 years.
>>
> Pay attention yourself; the issue under discussion is HOW the situation
> came about.
>
From where I stood, right there on the front line, 'HOW' began
when the hotel people saw a cash cow and took over UAL. When
one of the upper hotel types referred to us mechanics as "overpaid
bellhops," it sure didn't help. My neighbor, a service writer for a
car dealership, had a lot more take home pay than I. I suppose
the satisfaction from being able to maintain and certify a DC-10
for a pea soup fog landing at SFO was supposed to cover the
difference. ( In a way, it did. I sure loved that job. )

Do you suppose that the overfunded IAM pension fund, if left
to draw intrest, would be in much better shape today instead of
being ripped off to buy the Sheraton Hotels and put into the
shape it is? The ESOP buyout was intended to save an airline
that was on a downward spiral. Too bad it didn't work.
I guess when the U logo morphed into a WI it was too late.

> If you can't handle abstractions (that decidedly and distinctive human
> characteristic) then start a sub-thread.
>
PKB You've gone and appointed yourself net-nanny? The thread
that Orval started was practically addressed to me, a 27 yr UAL vet.
I've been glued to it since and only your appropriate post about
home-grown management prompted me to post a comparison to
the airline, almost as old as soap (P&G).
I have no idea why you got that burr under your saddle.

> Also, how long has it been since the union owned UAL?
>
I suppose you mean back when they started giving us ESOP
stock instead of COL payraises. Want to buy mine?
'taint worth much.

[sfb]

UAL sold off The Hertz Corporation, Westin Hotels, and Hilton
International Hotels in 1988. It is a bit of a stretch to believe that
raiding the United cash cow 17 years ago is the singular cause of the
current fate of United.

"Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
news:WKBYe.68943
>>
> From where I stood, right there on the front line, 'HOW' began
> when the hotel people saw a cash cow and took over UAL. When
> one of the upper hotel types referred to us mechanics as "overpaid
> bellhops," it sure didn't help. My neighbor, a service writer for a
> car dealership, had a lot more take home pay than I. I suppose
> the satisfaction from being able to maintain and certify a DC-10
> for a pea soup fog landing at SFO was supposed to cover the
> difference. ( In a way, it did. I sure loved that job. )
>
> Do you suppose that the overfunded IAM pension fund, if left
> to draw intrest, would be in much better shape today instead of
> being ripped off to buy the Sheraton Hotels and put into the
> shape it is? The ESOP buyout was intended to save an airline
> that was on a downward spiral. Too bad it didn't work.
> I guess when the U logo morphed into a WI it was too late.
>
>> If you can't handle abstractions (that decidedly and distinctive
>> human
>> characteristic) then start a sub-thread.
>>
> PKB You've gone and appointed yourself net-nanny? The thread
> that Orval started was practically addressed to me, a 27 yr UAL vet.
> I've been glued to it since and only your appropriate post about
> home-grown management prompted me to post a comparison to
> the airline, almost as old as soap (P&G).
> I have no idea why you got that burr under your saddle.
>
>> Also, how long has it been since the union owned UAL?
>>
> I suppose you mean back when they started giving us ESOP
> stock instead of COL payraises. Want to buy mine?
> 'taint worth much.
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
> news:X2AYe.70301$7f5.54144@okepread01...
>>
>> "John T" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Montblack wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> The company has an obligation to provide benefits and has to fund
>> >>> the plan to provide for those benefits.
>> >>
>> >> Agreed - however on the back end, not the front end based on outmoded
>> >> projections.
>> >
>> > Why does the company have an *obligation* to provide benefits?
>> >
>>
>> Because the was the agreement when the employee was hired. If I hired you
>> and said I would pay you $10.00/hr and then handed you your first week
>> paycheck and only paid you $9.00/hr how would you feel about that?
>
> I'd feel like telling them to live up to their agreements or I'd take a
> walk.
>
> Since only real estate transactions need be in writing, and even dinky
> jobs
> often have written stipulations (not a formal contract, but a written
> statement), in many states that would be a violation of state law. In any
> case, why would someone be willing to work for such folks?
>
>
> --
> Matt
> ---------------------
> Matthew W. Barrow
> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> Montrose, CO
>


And taking a walk is all good and fine if you find out they screwed you over
after a week. But after 20 years just going to work for the competition
isn't going to help you much.

[George Patterson]

Matt Barrow wrote:

>>You have a choice. Accept the higher paying job and save for retirement or take
>>the lower paying job and go for the security. You take the security.
>
> First mistake (actually, first two mistakes).

Well, in 1984, this was regarded as the smart choice, so most people just
leaving school would've made it. At least, they would have if they listened to
their student counselors.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Aluckyguess]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> >> Unions are there to protect the working class

From what? Themselfs.

>
> Like teachers?
>
>
> --
> Matt
>
> ---------------------
> Matthew W. Barrow
> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> Montrose, CO
>

[Aluckyguess]

"Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Look further and you will find a once great airline that was more or
>>>>> less
>>>>> taken over by hotel people and run into the ground.
>>>>> Also notice that huge (then) golden parachute that one CEO got
>>>>> when they let him go.
>>>>> Also notice how they raided the IAM employees overfunded
>>>>> pension fund for cash to buy another hotel chain.
>>>>> ...and on and on and on.
>>>>>
>>>> Proctor and Gamble runs airlines and hotel chains?
>>>>
>>>
>>> For Christ sake, the subject is (was) UAL!
>>> Pay attention. But thanks anyway for the good lead in
>>> to something that has had me ****ed for over 20 years.
>>>
>> Pay attention yourself; the issue under discussion is HOW the situation
>> came about.
>>
> From where I stood, right there on the front line, 'HOW' began
> when the hotel people saw a cash cow and took over UAL. When
> one of the upper hotel types referred to us mechanics as "overpaid
> bellhops," it sure didn't help. My neighbor, a service writer for a
> car dealership, had a lot more take home pay than I. I suppose
> the satisfaction from being able to maintain and certify a DC-10
> for a pea soup fog landing at SFO was supposed to cover the
> difference. ( In a way, it did. I sure loved that job. )
>
I imagine a person with this talent could demand quite a good salary. This
person would not need a union he could make more money on his own.

> Do you suppose that the overfunded IAM pension fund, if left
> to draw intrest, would be in much better shape today instead of
> being ripped off to buy the Sheraton Hotels and put into the
> shape it is? The ESOP buyout was intended to save an airline
> that was on a downward spiral. Too bad it didn't work.
> I guess when the U logo morphed into a WI it was too late.
>
>> If you can't handle abstractions (that decidedly and distinctive human
>> characteristic) then start a sub-thread.
>>
> PKB You've gone and appointed yourself net-nanny? The thread
> that Orval started was practically addressed to me, a 27 yr UAL vet.
> I've been glued to it since and only your appropriate post about
> home-grown management prompted me to post a comparison to
> the airline, almost as old as soap (P&G).
> I have no idea why you got that burr under your saddle.
>
>> Also, how long has it been since the union owned UAL?
>>
> I suppose you mean back when they started giving us ESOP
> stock instead of COL payraises. Want to buy mine?
> 'taint worth much.
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Matt Barrow]

"Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Look further and you will find a once great airline that was more or
>>>>> less
>>>>> taken over by hotel people and run into the ground.
>>>>> Also notice that huge (then) golden parachute that one CEO got
>>>>> when they let him go.
>>>>> Also notice how they raided the IAM employees overfunded
>>>>> pension fund for cash to buy another hotel chain.
>>>>> ...and on and on and on.
>>>>>
>>>> Proctor and Gamble runs airlines and hotel chains?
>>>>
>>>
>>> For Christ sake, the subject is (was) UAL!
>>> Pay attention. But thanks anyway for the good lead in
>>> to something that has had me ****ed for over 20 years.
>>>
>> Pay attention yourself; the issue under discussion is HOW the situation
>> came about.
>>
> From where I stood, right there on the front line, 'HOW' began
> when the hotel people saw a cash cow and took over UAL. When
> one of the upper hotel types referred to us mechanics as "overpaid
> bellhops," it sure didn't help. My neighbor, a service writer for a
> car dealership, had a lot more take home pay than I. I suppose
> the satisfaction from being able to maintain and certify a DC-10
> for a pea soup fog landing at SFO was supposed to cover the
> difference. ( In a way, it did. I sure loved that job. )
>
> Do you suppose that the overfunded IAM pension fund, if left
> to draw intrest, would be in much better shape today instead of
> being ripped off to buy the Sheraton Hotels and put into the
> shape it is? The ESOP buyout was intended to save an airline
> that was on a downward spiral. Too bad it didn't work.
> I guess when the U logo morphed into a WI it was too late.

And if left to merely draw interest, rather than invested, they'd wail ...
Oh, forget it!

>
>> If you can't handle abstractions (that decidedly and distinctive human
>> characteristic) then start a sub-thread.
>>
> PKB You've gone and appointed yourself net-nanny?

No, just pointing out that you're talking out your ass.


>The thread
> that Orval started was practically addressed to me, a 27 yr UAL vet.
> I've been glued to it since and only your appropriate post about
> home-grown management prompted me to post a comparison to
> the airline, almost as old as soap (P&G).
> I have no idea why you got that burr under your saddle.

Well, maybe because George and I were having a parallel discussion that you
jumped into and tried to hijack.

>
>> Also, how long has it been since the union owned UAL?
>>
> I suppose you mean back when they started giving us ESOP
> stock instead of COL payraises. Want to buy mine?
> 'taint worth much.

No...(once again) when did the union take over ownership of UAL?

Why I have a burr under my saddle is that you're trying to use only data
that supports your position and thus engaging in numerous logical fallacies.

I can sympathize with your plight of 27 years, but you're evidently far too
busy making excuses for your peers and yourself sitting on their brains and
wanting it "both ways". This is a primary reason so many people have lost an
affinity for unions that shoot themselves in the ass.

Grow up!

[Matt Barrow]

"sfb" > wrote in message news:P%BYe.4227$yN1.407@trnddc03...
> UAL sold off The Hertz Corporation, Westin Hotels, and Hilton
> International Hotels in 1988. It is a bit of a stretch to believe that
> raiding the United cash cow 17 years ago is the singular cause of the
> current fate of United.

A "stretch" is all they have for making childish excuses.


>
> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
> news:WKBYe.68943
>>>
>> From where I stood, right there on the front line, 'HOW' began
>> when the hotel people saw a cash cow and took over UAL. When
>> one of the upper hotel types referred to us mechanics as "overpaid
>> bellhops," it sure didn't help. My neighbor, a service writer for a
>> car dealership, had a lot more take home pay than I. I suppose
>> the satisfaction from being able to maintain and certify a DC-10
>> for a pea soup fog landing at SFO was supposed to cover the
>> difference. ( In a way, it did. I sure loved that job. )
>>
>> Do you suppose that the overfunded IAM pension fund, if left
>> to draw intrest, would be in much better shape today instead of
>> being ripped off to buy the Sheraton Hotels and put into the
>> shape it is? The ESOP buyout was intended to save an airline
>> that was on a downward spiral. Too bad it didn't work.
>> I guess when the U logo morphed into a WI it was too late.
>>
>>> If you can't handle abstractions (that decidedly and distinctive human
>>> characteristic) then start a sub-thread.
>>>
>> PKB You've gone and appointed yourself net-nanny? The thread
>> that Orval started was practically addressed to me, a 27 yr UAL vet.
>> I've been glued to it since and only your appropriate post about
>> home-grown management prompted me to post a comparison to
>> the airline, almost as old as soap (P&G).
>> I have no idea why you got that burr under your saddle.
>>
>>> Also, how long has it been since the union owned UAL?
>>>
>> I suppose you mean back when they started giving us ESOP
>> stock instead of COL payraises. Want to buy mine?
>> 'taint worth much.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:x5EYe.7645$N35.2320@trndny09...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>>>You have a choice. Accept the higher paying job and save for retirement
>>>or take
>>>the lower paying job and go for the security. You take the security.
>>
>> First mistake (actually, first two mistakes).
>
> Well, in 1984, this was regarded as the smart choice,

Handling your own finances was de rigure when my wife got into the industry
back in the late 70's.

> so most people just leaving school would've made it. At least, they would
> have if they listened to their student counselors.

And right there is much of the problem :~(

[Matt Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:ujDYe.70306$7f5.52421@okepread01...
>
>>>
>>> Because the was the agreement when the employee was hired. If I hired
>>> you
>>> and said I would pay you $10.00/hr and then handed you your first week
>>> paycheck and only paid you $9.00/hr how would you feel about that?
>>
>> I'd feel like telling them to live up to their agreements or I'd take a
>> walk.
>>
>> Since only real estate transactions need be in writing, and even dinky
>> jobs
>> often have written stipulations (not a formal contract, but a written
>> statement), in many states that would be a violation of state law. In any
>> case, why would someone be willing to work for such folks?
>>
>
> And taking a walk is all good and fine if you find out they screwed you
> over after a week. But after 20 years just going to work for the
> competition isn't going to help you much.

If it takes you 20 years to figure that out, then you're pretty much
helpless.


--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Jim Knoyle]

"sfb" > wrote in message news:P%BYe.4227$yN1.407@trnddc03...
> UAL sold off The Hertz Corporation, Westin Hotels, and Hilton
> International Hotels in 1988. It is a bit of a stretch to believe that
> raiding the United cash cow 17 years ago is the singular cause of the
> current fate of United.
>
Aah, yes, it was Hilton instead of Sheraton and somehow, I had
completly forgotton about Hertz. (senior moment? )
Can you imagine why the once proud airline that started in
aircraft like the Ford Trimoter felt it was only along for the ride?

> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
> news:WKBYe.68943
>>>
>> From where I stood, right there on the front line, 'HOW' began
>> when the hotel people saw a cash cow and took over UAL. When
>> one of the upper hotel types referred to us mechanics as "overpaid
>> bellhops," it sure didn't help. My neighbor, a service writer for a
>> car dealership, had a lot more take home pay than I. I suppose
>> the satisfaction from being able to maintain and certify a DC-10
>> for a pea soup fog landing at SFO was supposed to cover the
>> difference. ( In a way, it did. I sure loved that job. )
>>
>> Do you suppose that the overfunded IAM pension fund, if left
>> to draw intrest, would be in much better shape today instead of
>> being ripped off to buy the Sheraton Hotels and put into the
>> shape it is? The ESOP buyout was intended to save an airline
>> that was on a downward spiral. Too bad it didn't work.
>> I guess when the U logo morphed into a WI it was too late.
>>
(snip)

[Jim Knoyle]

"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>

(snip)
>>>
>> From where I stood, right there on the front line, 'HOW' began
>> when the hotel people saw a cash cow and took over UAL. When
>> one of the upper hotel types referred to us mechanics as "overpaid
>> bellhops," it sure didn't help. My neighbor, a service writer for a
>> car dealership, had a lot more take home pay than I. I suppose
>> the satisfaction from being able to maintain and certify a DC-10
>> for a pea soup fog landing at SFO was supposed to cover the
>> difference. ( In a way, it did. I sure loved that job. )
>>
> I imagine a person with this talent could demand quite a good salary. This
> person would not need a union he could make more money on his own.
>
For a reality check on day two you would probably get to
crawl through the inner reaches of some fuel tank to
replace all of the fuel quantity probes.
There was no equiv. non union job available and the cost of
maintaining calibrated test equipment and a supply of approved
servicable spare parts made being a self contractor unrealistic.
There was no choice but hire on with a major airline.
Also, guess whose labor was contracted out to fix the aircraft
of the fly-by-nighter that was cutting your throat in the marketplace. :-)

>> Do you suppose that the overfunded IAM pension fund, if left
>> to draw intrest, would be in much better shape today instead of
>> being ripped off to buy the Sheraton Hotels and put into the
>> shape it is? The ESOP buyout was intended to save an airline
>> that was on a downward spiral. Too bad it didn't work.
>> I guess when the U logo morphed into a WI it was too late.
>>
Oops, Hilton, not Sheraton, sorry.

(snip)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
> news:ujDYe.70306$7f5.52421@okepread01...
>>
>>>>
>>>> Because the was the agreement when the employee was hired. If I hired
>>>> you
>>>> and said I would pay you $10.00/hr and then handed you your first week
>>>> paycheck and only paid you $9.00/hr how would you feel about that?
>>>
>>> I'd feel like telling them to live up to their agreements or I'd take a
>>> walk.
>>>
>>> Since only real estate transactions need be in writing, and even dinky
>>> jobs
>>> often have written stipulations (not a formal contract, but a written
>>> statement), in many states that would be a violation of state law. In
>>> any
>>> case, why would someone be willing to work for such folks?
>>>
>>
>> And taking a walk is all good and fine if you find out they screwed you
>> over after a week. But after 20 years just going to work for the
>> competition isn't going to help you much.
>
> If it takes you 20 years to figure that out, then you're pretty much
> helpless.
>
>
> --

Matt, Are you just being an asshole for the fun of it. The post that I
posted my original reply to was one that asked the question of why the
carrier had an obligation to pay the pension. I compared it to the $10 $9
example.

If I work somewhere for 20 years and during that entire time they promise me
a pension after 20 years yes I expect them to pay it.

[sfb]

The pension plan must specify when you become vested. Only when vested
are you guaranteed a pension.

Typically, what you will see today is vesting at 5 or 10 years, but may
not collect until you are 65 if you leave before retirement. There was a
time when one had to work until 65 to collect a pension. No early
retirement or vesting at all.

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message ...
>
> If I work somewhere for 20 years and during that entire time they
> promise me a pension after 20 years yes I expect them to pay it.
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"sfb" > wrote in message news:nZVYe.862$SG3.675@trnddc07...
> The pension plan must specify when you become vested. Only when vested are
> you guaranteed a pension.
>
> Typically, what you will see today is vesting at 5 or 10 years, but may
> not collect until you are 65 if you leave before retirement. There was a
> time when one had to work until 65 to collect a pension. No early
> retirement or vesting at all.
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message ...
>>
>> If I work somewhere for 20 years and during that entire time they promise
>> me a pension after 20 years yes I expect them to pay it.
>>
>


You do realize that has nothing to do with what I wrote don't you?

[George Patterson]

sfb wrote:
> The pension plan must specify when you become vested. Only when vested
> are you guaranteed a pension.

If the company goes into Chapter 11, your pension can go bye-bye. They can also
rewrite the terms to some extent, even if the company doesn't declare bankruptcy.

> Typically, what you will see today is vesting at 5 or 10 years, but may
> not collect until you are 65 if you leave before retirement.

Under Federal law, you are partially vested at 2 years and fully vested at 5 years.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Matt Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:ayVYe.76341$7f5.16514@okepread01...
>
>>>
>>> And taking a walk is all good and fine if you find out they screwed you
>>> over after a week. But after 20 years just going to work for the
>>> competition isn't going to help you much.
>>
>> If it takes you 20 years to figure that out, then you're pretty much
>> helpless.
>>
>>
>> --
>
> Matt, Are you just being an asshole for the fun of it. The post that I
> posted my original reply to was one that asked the question of why the
> carrier had an obligation to pay the pension.

Contractual obligation.

> I compared it to the $10 $9 example.

An entirely different context. Under the scenario you painted in this
instance, the proper move was to complain, then quit if there was no
satisfaction.

Now let me ask you something: Are you being childish for a reason? Did you
get burned by being naive and now are unwilling to face up like an adult?

So far, the points I've seen from so many are more what I'd expect from
adolesants. If that means I'm an asshole, the maybe I am, but there are some
real spoiled brats running loose.

>
> If I work somewhere for 20 years and during that entire time they promise
> me a pension after 20 years yes I expect them to pay it.

Get a book on contract law, and lookup "impossibility of performance".

If you'd rather a candyass whose shoulder you can cry on after messing up
your worklife/career for 20 years, then that's not me. I treat people in
their 40's like adults, not kids, and I expect that by the time Daddy kicks
them out of the nest they can handle their lives and careers.

Hey, it's a shame your employer "died". but when you started with them YOU
handed them the Vaseline jar.

Just make damn sure your own kids don't make the same mistakes. Better yet,
get them a copy of Kiyosaki's "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" and make them read it.
It's got some ephemeral tales, but the gist is dead on.

Sorry if that comes off like an "asshole", but I've already raised three
kids that were on their way to financial independence since their teens and
I'm not up for raising any more kids, especially ones that are damn near my
own age.




--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Matt you are just talking out of your ass now. You jumped into a thread you
obviously hadn't read. Just so you know here was the original message I
responded to.


Montblack wrote:
>
>> The company has an obligation to provide benefits and has to fund
>> the plan to provide for those benefits.
>
> Agreed - however on the back end, not the front end based on outmoded
> projections.

Why does the company have an *obligation* to provide benefits?

--
John T


My response was based on what looked like John T's belief that there was no
obligation to provide benefits promised.

Where you came up with your version of the thread I have not a clue but as
far as I'm concerned it ends now.




"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
> news:ayVYe.76341$7f5.16514@okepread01...
>>
>>>>
>>>> And taking a walk is all good and fine if you find out they screwed you
>>>> over after a week. But after 20 years just going to work for the
>>>> competition isn't going to help you much.
>>>
>>> If it takes you 20 years to figure that out, then you're pretty much
>>> helpless.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> Matt, Are you just being an asshole for the fun of it. The post that I
>> posted my original reply to was one that asked the question of why the
>> carrier had an obligation to pay the pension.
>
> Contractual obligation.
>
>> I compared it to the $10 $9 example.
>
> An entirely different context. Under the scenario you painted in this
> instance, the proper move was to complain, then quit if there was no
> satisfaction.
>
> Now let me ask you something: Are you being childish for a reason? Did you
> get burned by being naive and now are unwilling to face up like an adult?
>
> So far, the points I've seen from so many are more what I'd expect from
> adolesants. If that means I'm an asshole, the maybe I am, but there are
> some real spoiled brats running loose.
>
>>
>> If I work somewhere for 20 years and during that entire time they promise
>> me a pension after 20 years yes I expect them to pay it.
>
> Get a book on contract law, and lookup "impossibility of performance".
>
> If you'd rather a candyass whose shoulder you can cry on after messing up
> your worklife/career for 20 years, then that's not me. I treat people in
> their 40's like adults, not kids, and I expect that by the time Daddy
> kicks them out of the nest they can handle their lives and careers.
>
> Hey, it's a shame your employer "died". but when you started with them YOU
> handed them the Vaseline jar.
>
> Just make damn sure your own kids don't make the same mistakes. Better
> yet, get them a copy of Kiyosaki's "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" and make them read
> it. It's got some ephemeral tales, but the gist is dead on.
>
> Sorry if that comes off like an "asshole", but I've already raised three
> kids that were on their way to financial independence since their teens
> and I'm not up for raising any more kids, especially ones that are damn
> near my own age.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Matt
>
> ---------------------
> Matthew W. Barrow
> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> Montrose, CO
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Aluckyguess]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:ayVYe.76341$7f5.16514@okepread01...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
>> news:ujDYe.70306$7f5.52421@okepread01...
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Because the was the agreement when the employee was hired. If I hired
>>>>> you
>>>>> and said I would pay you $10.00/hr and then handed you your first week
>>>>> paycheck and only paid you $9.00/hr how would you feel about that?
>>>>
>>>> I'd feel like telling them to live up to their agreements or I'd take a
>>>> walk.
>>>>
>>>> Since only real estate transactions need be in writing, and even dinky
>>>> jobs
>>>> often have written stipulations (not a formal contract, but a written
>>>> statement), in many states that would be a violation of state law. In
>>>> any
>>>> case, why would someone be willing to work for such folks?
>>>>
>>>
>>> And taking a walk is all good and fine if you find out they screwed you
>>> over after a week. But after 20 years just going to work for the
>>> competition isn't going to help you much.
>>
>> If it takes you 20 years to figure that out, then you're pretty much
>> helpless.
>>
>>
>> --
>
> Matt, Are you just being an asshole for the fun of it. The post that I
> posted my original reply to was one that asked the question of why the
> carrier had an obligation to pay the pension. I compared it to the $10 $9
> example.
>
> If I work somewhere for 20 years and during that entire time they promise
> me a pension after 20 years yes I expect them to pay it.
Remember no one will take care of your money you have to do it yourself.

>
>

[leslie]

Matt Barrow ) wrote:
:
: >> Unions are there to protect the working class
:
: Like teachers?
:
:

American teachers may become the next occupational "endangered species":


http://www.vdare.com/guzzardi/050826_vfl.htm
VDARE.com: 08/26/05 - View From Lodi, CA:
Look Out Teachers; The H-1B Visa Gang Wants Your Job

"View From Lodi, CA: Look Out Teachers; The H-1B Visa Gang Wants Your Job
By Joe Guzzardi

A recent item in the Las Vegas Review-Journal should raise eyebrows
among my teaching colleagues and parents with school age children.

In his warm and fuzzy story titled Teachers Arrive From Philippines,
Antonio Planas reported that 51 Filipino teachers recruited in
February to work for the Clark County School District have completed
their 7,000-mile journey. They are headed directly to the classroom.
[August 2, 2005]

Clark County is, according to the story, short about 400 teachers
district wide.

But tough, unasked questions remain.

Will the new instructors be able to make the transition from teaching
in rural communities half way around the world--one described her
village as "rice and coconut farmers"--to teaching in the neon lights
of urban Las Vegas?

[snip]

The Filipino teachers are legally in the U.S. on non-immigrant H-1B
visas. And that fact begs a bigger question: did Clark County exhaust
every opportunity to hire an American before traveling to the other
side of the globe?

Rob Sanchez, who tracks non-immigrant visa issues and is the Webmaster
for the invaluable www.zazona.com, says school districts fail to look
at unemployed local professionals. Many laid off software engineers,
for example, have gone back to school to get education degrees.

Wrote Sanchez in his August 3rd newsletter:

"School districts all over the United States are actively recruiting
foreign teachers for our schools. In this case, Filipino math and
science teachers on H-1B visas have just arrived in Nevada.

I have talked to many engineers and programmers that have been unable
to get teaching jobs in math and science, despite the fact that they
went back to school to get education degrees. Despite the growing
number of desperate unemployed high-tech workers states like Nevada
still claim there is a shortage of these types of teachers. This is
just another cruel insult to the growing number of highly educated
professionals that can't find meaningful work."

And when Sanchez says that recruitment of foreign teachers is going on
nationwide, he isn't kidding.

o In 2003, Arizona educators traveled to New Delhi for teachers
even though the local Scottsdale Unified School District cut 175
jobs during the same period. [Teachers Recruited from India, Pat
Kossan, Arizona Republic, March 22, 2003]

o In June 2004, the New York Department of Education, crying
"shortage," added 200 additional teachers from Jamaica to its staff.
The state offered two additional bonuses: free legal advice so that
they could convert their visas into permanent residency status and
free temporary housing.

o In September 2001, Cleveland hired 50 math and special
education teachers from India. This year 500 pink slips are being sent
out in what the Cleveland Plain-Dealer describes as

"The first wave in what will be deep staff cuts in
the school district."

[Nearly 500 Teachers Will Be Cut, Janet Okoben and Ebony Reed,
April 23, 2005]

At the beginning of my column I warned that teachers should be leery
of the trend to hire H-1Bs.

Conservative estimates put the number of teachers with non-immigrant
visas at about 15,000...and growing.

If you wonder why the attraction to H-1Bs is so strong, read the 2004
National Education Association report Trends in Foreign Teacher
Recruitment.

From the NEA report:

"...Some foreign teachers receive lower pay than comparable teachers
in their schools."

And:

"...Some school districts pay their nonimmigrant employees as new
teachers, regardless of their experience and qualifications..."



--Jerry Leslie
Note: is invalid for email

[Jon A]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 01:38:24 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Jon A" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Another republican!
>>
>
>Are you using "republican" as a synonym of "informed"? You seem to be.

No, uninformed about reality would be a better descriptor than what
you use. You guys still don't (won't) get it, will you?
>

[Jon A]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 01:36:58 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Jon A" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Ones that would be allowed to proliferate if no unions were present.
>> How about 14 hour work days with no breaks for starters?
>>
>
>Are you saying that without unions we'd have 14 hour work days with no
>breaks? Even if that was so, how would it be unfair?
>
>
>>
>> I really don't believe that someone who is as learned as you appear to be
>> would
>> ask that question.
>>
>
>How else can I know what you believe are unfair management practices?
>
>
>>
>> Check a history book if you want to know more.
>>
>
>Do you know of any history books that agree with your position?



Outrageous! You don't even deserve the courtesy of this reply!
>

[Jon A]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 04:26:08 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote:

>
>"Jon A" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:44:15 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Jon A" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:32:13 -0400, Bob Noel
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article >, Jon A
>> >
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Unions are there to protect the working class
>> >> >
>> >> >true.
>> >> >
>> >> >What prevents unions from abusing the workers or the company?
>> >>
>> >> Unfortunately, the workers themselves must hold the union management
>> >> to task. Doesn't work in some instances which seems to be a
>> >> commonality within the human race - - - greed!
>> >
>> >Millions and millions of jobs have left this country due to union
>> >mis-management and greed. For some reason the unions don't mention that
>> >fact.
>>
>> Greed on whose part? Are you saying you'll pay $75 for your shirts
>> rather than $4.99 at Wal Mart? We're all in the same boat, bunky.
>> Management's job is to find ways to make this work.
>
>I believe I said greed on the part of unions.
>And the solution is to move union manufacturing jobs out of country.
>Take a look at union membership numbers for the past 30 years.

Precisely my point. Maybe you are starting to get it!

Congrats!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jon A" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, uninformed about reality would be a better descriptor than what
> you use. You guys still don't (won't) get it, will you?
>

What don't we get?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jon A" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>Do you know of any history books that agree with your position?
>>
>
> Outrageous! You don't even deserve the courtesy of this reply!
>

I'll take that as a "No".

[Jon A]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:11:53 -0700, "Aluckyguess" >
wrote:

>I imagine a person with this talent could demand quite a good salary. This
>person would not need a union he could make more money on his own.

Unless because this person had to feed the family and a businessman
was able to get him at half the price because although he was a master
of his trade, he wasn't learned in the art of business. If the
tradesman tries to get ahead, they have to strike. They end the
strike when the businessman gives his word to make thing right. If
the businessman needs to get ahead he can slowly screw everyone else
to death.

Now years ago the unionized folks made an agreement with management
that they're reneging on with the infamous bankruptcy. Who cares
about the reason they're skipping. The ****in' pension was part of
the employment package, read: the salary. The company owes it to the
people and bankruptcy shouldn't wipe the obligation away. If the
current and past crop of MBAs were looking at jail time for this
crime, I'll just bet that it wouldn't have happened.

[Jon A]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:09:19 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>I can sympathize with your plight of 27 years, but you're evidently far too
>busy making excuses for your peers and yourself sitting on their brains and
>wanting it "both ways". This is a primary reason so many people have lost an
>affinity for unions that shoot themselves in the ass.
>
>Grow up!
>
No, I don't think you can sympathize, unless you've lost everything
you have worked for your future. Again, they only have themselves to
blame for their plight. The fact that they trusted the word of a
bunch of scumbags that had no right to gamble the way they did got
them in trouble. Same could be said about marriage ;-)


The primary reasons that people are against unions is because the
general population has grown from tradesmen to management. As
managers, unions keep you honest and hence become the enemy. Get off
your ass and go down into a section of the country where there are
real workers and see what the thoughts of unions are there. Once
again, we have people claiming others talk out of their ass, when they
actually have no ass themselves.

[Aluckyguess]

"Jon A" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:11:53 -0700, "Aluckyguess" >
> wrote:
>
>>I imagine a person with this talent could demand quite a good salary. This
>>person would not need a union he could make more money on his own.
>
> Unless because this person had to feed the family and a businessman
> was able to get him at half the price because although he was a master
> of his trade, he wasn't learned in the art of business. If the
> tradesman tries to get ahead, they have to strike. They end the
> strike when the businessman gives his word to make thing right. If
> the businessman needs to get ahead he can slowly screw everyone else
> to death.
>
> Now years ago the unionized folks made an agreement with management
> that they're reneging on with the infamous bankruptcy. Who cares
> about the reason they're skipping. The ****in' pension was part of
> the employment package, read: the salary. The company owes it to the
> people and bankruptcy shouldn't wipe the obligation away. If the
> current and past crop of MBAs were looking at jail time for this
> crime, I'll just bet that it wouldn't have happened.
>
>
How can a business man screw is worker. All the worker has to do is quit and
get another job. Pretty simple.

[Aluckyguess]

"Jon A" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:09:19 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>I can sympathize with your plight of 27 years, but you're evidently far
>>too
>>busy making excuses for your peers and yourself sitting on their brains
>>and
>>wanting it "both ways". This is a primary reason so many people have lost
>>an
>>affinity for unions that shoot themselves in the ass.
>>
>>Grow up!
>>
> No, I don't think you can sympathize, unless you've lost everything
> you have worked for your future. Again, they only have themselves to
> blame for their plight. The fact that they trusted the word of a
> bunch of scumbags that had no right to gamble the way they did got
> them in trouble. Same could be said about marriage ;-)
>
>
> The primary reasons that people are against unions is because the
> general population has grown from tradesmen to management. As
> managers, unions keep you honest and hence become the enemy. Get off
> your ass and go down into a section of the country where there are
> real workers and see what the thoughts of unions are there. Once
> again, we have people claiming others talk out of their ass, when they
> actually have no ass themselves.

There will always be a need for the real worker. Skilled labor is getting
very rare. I had to pay some of my machinists over 100k a year. It was tuff
to keep them they would get many job offers.

[sfb]

In the airline business? Supposedly, Northwest was able to hire their
replacements because so much down sizing had occurred in the industry.

"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...

>
> There will always be a need for the real worker. Skilled labor is
> getting very rare. I had to pay some of my machinists over 100k a
> year. It was tuff to keep them they would get many job offers.
>

[Jon A]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 16:09:32 -0700, "Aluckyguess" >
wrote:

>
>"Jon A" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:09:19 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I can sympathize with your plight of 27 years, but you're evidently far
>>>too
>>>busy making excuses for your peers and yourself sitting on their brains
>>>and
>>>wanting it "both ways". This is a primary reason so many people have lost
>>>an
>>>affinity for unions that shoot themselves in the ass.
>>>
>>>Grow up!
>>>
>> No, I don't think you can sympathize, unless you've lost everything
>> you have worked for your future. Again, they only have themselves to
>> blame for their plight. The fact that they trusted the word of a
>> bunch of scumbags that had no right to gamble the way they did got
>> them in trouble. Same could be said about marriage ;-)
>>
>>
>> The primary reasons that people are against unions is because the
>> general population has grown from tradesmen to management. As
>> managers, unions keep you honest and hence become the enemy. Get off
>> your ass and go down into a section of the country where there are
>> real workers and see what the thoughts of unions are there. Once
>> again, we have people claiming others talk out of their ass, when they
>> actually have no ass themselves.
>
>There will always be a need for the real worker. Skilled labor is getting
>very rare. I had to pay some of my machinists over 100k a year. It was tuff
>to keep them they would get many job offers.

Damn, that's tough, but it's supply & demand! God bless you for
hanging in there with American workers and not sending it out to China
for 100 bucks a year. If you could have gotten them for $50K, would
you have done it? Would you have sacrificed a bit of quality for the
savings? Just curious. You say you had to pay some over 100K per
year. is that with or without the load?

[Rich Lemert]

Aluckyguess wrote:
>
> How can a business man screw is worker. All the worker has to do is quit and
> get another job. Pretty simple.
>
>

And pretty naive! Company towns (they still exist). Blacklists. A poor
economy with high unemployment.

[sfb]

Anybody stupid enough to blacklist would be out of business in an hour
and a half as the contingency fee lawyers would be taking numbers to sue
his ass.

"Rich Lemert" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Aluckyguess wrote:
>>
>> How can a business man screw is worker. All the worker has to do is
>> quit and get another job. Pretty simple.
>
> And pretty naive! Company towns (they still exist). Blacklists. A
> poor
> economy with high unemployment.
>

[George Patterson]

sfb wrote:

> Anybody stupid enough to blacklist would be out of business in an hour
> and a half as the contingency fee lawyers would be taking numbers to sue
> his ass.

And how do you discover and prove that you're on a blacklist? Serious question,
here.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[bowman]

sfb wrote:

> Anybody stupid enough to blacklist would be out of business in an hour
> and a half as the contingency fee lawyers would be taking numbers to sue
> his ass.

Employers publish their blacklists in the legal notices section of the local
newspaper?

"Joe? Great worker, punctual, learned new skills well, and was really
conscientious. Poor guy had a lot of bad luck though, and had a couple of
work related injuries."

Translation: "the second time the dumb son of a bitch tried to run a
Workmen's Comp scam on us, we put him on light duty cleaning the crappers
with a toothbrush until he quit."



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[John T]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:HEXYe.77098$7f5.3618@okepread01
>
> My response was based on what looked like John T's belief that there was
> no obligation to provide benefits promised.

No, that wasn't my point at all. My question remains: Why does an employer
have an *obligation* to provide benefits?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"John T" > wrote:

> No, that wasn't my point at all. My question remains: Why does an employer
> have an *obligation* to provide benefits?

do you mean benefits other than those required by state and/or federal law?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "John T" > wrote:
>
>> No, that wasn't my point at all. My question remains: Why does an
>> employer
>> have an *obligation* to provide benefits?
>
> do you mean benefits other than those required by state and/or federal
> law?
>
>

In addition to Bob's question can I add... do you mean other than those that
the employer promised to provide at the time of hire?

[John T]

Bob Noel wrote:
>
> do you mean benefits other than those required by state and/or
> federal law?

My question stands. State law varies, obviously, but what benefits does the
federal government require of employers?

As for promises: If it's not in writing, it's worth about as much as the
lint in my pocket. I agree it reflects very badly on the company and should
be advertised so other potential employees know what kind of company it is.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[George Patterson]

John T wrote:

> As for promises: If it's not in writing, it's worth about as much as the
> lint in my pocket.

Most of the benefits discussed in this thread are put in writing repeatedly by
an employer. I used to get statements detailing my pension at least once a year.

The problem is that *those* promises are worth little more than the paper
they're written on. When a corporation gets to the point where the chief
executives feels that their only choice is violation of the law or going out of
business, they will usually violate the law. If they can manage to avoid that by
bankruptcy, they will usually declare bankruptcy. Either way, their promises are
history.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"John T" > wrote:

> > do you mean benefits other than those required by state and/or
> > federal law?
>
> My question stands. State law varies, obviously, but what benefits does the
> federal government require of employers?

Would you consider the Family Medical Leave Act (or some such name) a
benefit?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[John T]

Bob Noel wrote:
>
>> My question stands. State law varies, obviously, but what benefits
>> does the federal government require of employers?
>
> Would you consider the Family Medical Leave Act (or some such name) a
> benefit?

For limited numbers of employees. Even then it only guarantees unpaid leave
and has nothing to do with retirement plans (the genesis of this thread).

Got any other benefits the Feds require of employers?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[Robert M. Gary]

> http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/whdfs17.htm
Its likely that most of us live in states where the state law is more
restrictive.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/whdfs17.htm
> Its likely that most of us live in states where the state law is more
> restrictive.
>

And many of us don't.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"John T" > wrote:

> > Would you consider the Family Medical Leave Act (or some such name) a
> > benefit?
>
> For limited numbers of employees.

huh? it only applies to limited number of employees? I don't think
we are talking about the same thing.

> Even then it only guarantees unpaid leave

among other things.

> and has nothing to do with retirement plans (the genesis of this thread).

so what? you asked: "what benefits does the federal government require
of employers?"

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[John T]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message

>
>> For limited numbers of employees.
>
> huh? it only applies to limited number of employees? I don't think
> we are talking about the same thing.

If you're talking about the US, then yes, we are. Read the law. Here's a
starting point:
http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/fmla/

> so what? you asked: "what benefits does the federal government
> require of employers?"

And that's a good start. You implied there were others. Does the federal
government require employers to provide any other benefits besides unpaid
time off? (When I think of "benefit", I'm usually thinking of something
that is of more value than not getting paid. Something like "free" medical
coverage or matching retirement contributions - like the retirement plan
that started this thread.)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[George Patterson]

George Patterson wrote:
> sfb wrote:
>
>> Anybody stupid enough to blacklist would be out of business in an hour
>> and a half as the contingency fee lawyers would be taking numbers to
>> sue his ass.
>
> And how do you discover and prove that you're on a blacklist? Serious
> question, here.

Well, since nobody seems to have an answer to this one, it appears that
blacklists are probably very much alive and well. At least, nobody on this group
seems to be aware of any means of detecting one. And if nobody can prove that
they're on a blacklist, I guess the lawyers are SOL.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.