NetJets Layoff

[[email protected]]

NetJets laid off an undisclosed number of employees yesterday in at
least the Ohio offices.

The employees (some as long as seven years) arrived at work yesterday
and were called into meetings where they were told their positions no
longer existed, their benefits end on Friday (June 30th), given a
document outlining the terms of their 'voluntary resignation', and
given an hour to remove their personal property. Two I spoke to said
they were not even assisted removing their belongings, or provided with
boxes/carts or anything. Their access badges were taken, so it was a
one trip deal.

I've seen people fired for 'just cause' get better treatment than these
'voluntary resignees' received.

Perhaps with Warren Buffet's recent donation to the Gate's Foundation,
he has lost concern for his human resources. But then again, they are
voluntarily resigning, so it's not really a layoff, right?

[Darkwing]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> NetJets laid off an undisclosed number of employees yesterday in at
> least the Ohio offices.
>
> The employees (some as long as seven years) arrived at work yesterday
> and were called into meetings where they were told their positions no
> longer existed, their benefits end on Friday (June 30th), given a
> document outlining the terms of their 'voluntary resignation', and
> given an hour to remove their personal property. Two I spoke to said
> they were not even assisted removing their belongings, or provided with
> boxes/carts or anything. Their access badges were taken, so it was a
> one trip deal.
>
> I've seen people fired for 'just cause' get better treatment than these
> 'voluntary resignees' received.
>
> Perhaps with Warren Buffet's recent donation to the Gate's Foundation,
> he has lost concern for his human resources. But then again, they are
> voluntarily resigning, so it's not really a layoff, right?
>

Hell I thought they were hiring.

----------------------------------------------
DW

[Kyle Boatright]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> NetJets laid off an undisclosed number of employees yesterday in at
> least the Ohio offices.
>
> The employees (some as long as seven years) arrived at work yesterday
> and were called into meetings where they were told their positions no
> longer existed, their benefits end on Friday (June 30th), given a
> document outlining the terms of their 'voluntary resignation', and
> given an hour to remove their personal property. Two I spoke to said
> they were not even assisted removing their belongings, or provided with
> boxes/carts or anything. Their access badges were taken, so it was a
> one trip deal.
>
> I've seen people fired for 'just cause' get better treatment than these
> 'voluntary resignees' received.
>
> Perhaps with Warren Buffet's recent donation to the Gate's Foundation,
> he has lost concern for his human resources. But then again, they are
> voluntarily resigning, so it's not really a layoff, right?

My employer is 100% owned by Berkshire and I can tell you that Buffet and/or
Berkshire is extremely hands-off on daily operational matters and policies.
Fundamentally, Berkshire expects its divisions to obey all legal
requirements, provide certain report to corporate HQ, and generate at least
a certain return on assets. That is slightly oversimplified, but the bottom
line is that senior management of the various business units have
near-autonomy in handling daily operations and making strategic decisions
for their businesses. It is doubtful that Berkshire has any knowledge of
how the release of these employees was handled.

KB

[john smith]

A friend was given notice at 4:00 PM Tuesday afternoon. No explaination
was given for the layoff, only that it was not performance related. This
was a top management level employee.
The local news organizations have not yet picked up the story.

[BTIZ]

depending what was in the contract they signed... I'm sure a few lawyers
will be interested in these "voluntary resignations"..

that means they can't collect un employment benefits

BT

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> NetJets laid off an undisclosed number of employees yesterday in at
> least the Ohio offices.
>
> The employees (some as long as seven years) arrived at work yesterday
> and were called into meetings where they were told their positions no
> longer existed, their benefits end on Friday (June 30th), given a
> document outlining the terms of their 'voluntary resignation', and
> given an hour to remove their personal property. Two I spoke to said
> they were not even assisted removing their belongings, or provided with
> boxes/carts or anything. Their access badges were taken, so it was a
> one trip deal.
>
> I've seen people fired for 'just cause' get better treatment than these
> 'voluntary resignees' received.
>
> Perhaps with Warren Buffet's recent donation to the Gate's Foundation,
> he has lost concern for his human resources. But then again, they are
> voluntarily resigning, so it's not really a layoff, right?
>

[Dave Stadt]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:gg1pg.7819$6w.6596@fed1read11...
> depending what was in the contract they signed... I'm sure a few lawyers
> will be interested in these "voluntary resignations"..

It would be interesting to hear the whole story, not just one side.

> that means they can't collect un employment benefits
>
> BT
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> NetJets laid off an undisclosed number of employees yesterday in at
>> least the Ohio offices.
>>
>> The employees (some as long as seven years) arrived at work yesterday
>> and were called into meetings where they were told their positions no
>> longer existed, their benefits end on Friday (June 30th), given a
>> document outlining the terms of their 'voluntary resignation', and
>> given an hour to remove their personal property. Two I spoke to said
>> they were not even assisted removing their belongings, or provided with
>> boxes/carts or anything. Their access badges were taken, so it was a
>> one trip deal.
>>
>> I've seen people fired for 'just cause' get better treatment than these
>> 'voluntary resignees' received.
>>
>> Perhaps with Warren Buffet's recent donation to the Gate's Foundation,
>> he has lost concern for his human resources. But then again, they are
>> voluntarily resigning, so it's not really a layoff, right?
>>
>
>

[John Doe[_1_]]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>A friend was given notice at 4:00 PM Tuesday afternoon. No explaination
> was given for the layoff, only that it was not performance related. This
> was a top management level employee.
> The local news organizations have not yet picked up the story.

That's cause there is NO story.

It's called life.

[john smith]

> > The local news organizations have not yet picked up the story.

> That's cause there is NO story.
> It's called life.

It is a story when a company owned by Warren Buffett is supposedly doing
well profit-wise suddenly, without explaination lays off scores of
employees. It raises questions about managements honesty and integrety.
The stockholders would certainly have an interest in knowing.

[Matt Barrow[_1_]]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>> > The local news organizations have not yet picked up the story.
>
>> That's cause there is NO story.
>> It's called life.
>
> It is a story when a company owned by Warren Buffett is supposedly doing
> well profit-wise suddenly, without explaination lays off scores of
> employees. It raises questions about managements honesty and integrety.

It raises questions, but the ones you post are flat out paranoid and NOYDB!

> The stockholders would certainly have an interest in knowing.

Well, you think maybe the management will let them know without having to
blab to the media?

[[email protected]]

Aparently a senior manager (executive level) told them in a meeting
earlier in the month that there would be no layoffs, nobody would be
losing their job. He then was the one to notify at least some of them
of their 'voluntary' resignation.

I haven't seen the resignations that were wrote for them so I can't
confirm this, but I heard they also disallowed any future employment
with the company.

It's getting complicated...

Let's see...

They make me quit, agreeing that it was my idea. I'm quitting because
my job was eliminated, it was not in any way performance related... And
I agree that I can never work for NetJets again in the future.

The lawyers are going to have a field day with this....

[Morgans[_1_]]

> wrote

> They make me quit, agreeing that it was my idea. I'm quitting because
> my job was eliminated, it was not in any way performance related... And
> I agree that I can never work for NetJets again in the future.
>
> The lawyers are going to have a field day with this....

Agreed. There is certainly more here, than what is being told, one way or
the other.

I wouldn't mind a nice fat unlawful termination suit being won in my favor,
would you? <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Casey Wilson[_1_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote
>
>> They make me quit, agreeing that it was my idea. I'm quitting because
>> my job was eliminated, it was not in any way performance related... And
>> I agree that I can never work for NetJets again in the future.
>>
>> The lawyers are going to have a field day with this....
>
> Agreed. There is certainly more here, than what is being told, one way or
> the other.
>
> I wouldn't mind a nice fat unlawful termination suit being won in my
> favor, would you?

And what do you see as "unlawful termination?" Color? Creed? Age?
Gender? Without an explicit contract saying otherwise, any employer can
terminate any employee and do it **WITHOUT** cause. The only thing I see
that might have been unethical was the horsesh... feathers about signing a
voluntary termination note. That released the employer from any obligation
for paying unemployment benefits. While it may have been unethical, it was
NOT illegal.

I feel bad for Joseph and his fellow former NetJets employees, but the
bottom line is: ===nobody is guaranteed a job===

As sad as it may seem that lots of folks are going to be spending a
long hot summer with no income, and as chicken sh...tuff as it may seem, no
legal beagle is going to make a dime unless they can prove color, creed,
age, or gender was involved.
Ask my wife. Several years ago, she worked for a corporation long
enough to top out, pay wise, in her job code. In January of that year, she
received an award for Employee of the Year. In addition to a fancy
certificate and cash bonus, the company gave her a voucher for a week
vacation at a Florida resort. When we got back from Florida the following
May, she found a letter in her in-box that her services were no longer
required. When she found that another person had been hired to do her former
job at less than half the salary, she went to a lawyer --- a friend we've
known for decades. His response was, "....nobody is guaranteed a job."

[[email protected]]

I've never worked for NetJets. Someone close to me was.

Honestly, I don't know the legalities where this is involved, and what
the selection criteria was for the layoffs. But I do know that telling
someone 'sign this or you won't get any severance pay' could pretty
easily spawn a legal battle based on duress. The two I know are over
40, so age discrimination could be a factor. One was promoted into a
position then a month or so later that 'position' is eliminated, the
other was relocated from out of state. My reason for posting wasn't to
indicate NetJets did anything illegally.. I'm not that closely involved
in it. I posted it because it sickened me to hear the poor treatment
they (and presumable many others) received.

We are a litigious society, where people can get paid for doing
something stupid... So to say they need to just accept it because 'it
happened to me' would indicate to me your wife probably should have got
a second opinion. ;-)

Casey Wilson wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote
> >
> >> They make me quit, agreeing that it was my idea. I'm quitting because
> >> my job was eliminated, it was not in any way performance related... And
> >> I agree that I can never work for NetJets again in the future.
> >>
> >> The lawyers are going to have a field day with this....
> >
> > Agreed. There is certainly more here, than what is being told, one way or
> > the other.
> >
> > I wouldn't mind a nice fat unlawful termination suit being won in my
> > favor, would you?
>
> And what do you see as "unlawful termination?" Color? Creed? Age?
> Gender? Without an explicit contract saying otherwise, any employer can
> terminate any employee and do it **WITHOUT** cause. The only thing I see
> that might have been unethical was the horsesh... feathers about signing a
> voluntary termination note. That released the employer from any obligation
> for paying unemployment benefits. While it may have been unethical, it was
> NOT illegal.
>
> I feel bad for Joseph and his fellow former NetJets employees, but the
> bottom line is: ===nobody is guaranteed a job===
>
> As sad as it may seem that lots of folks are going to be spending a
> long hot summer with no income, and as chicken sh...tuff as it may seem, no
> legal beagle is going to make a dime unless they can prove color, creed,
> age, or gender was involved.
> Ask my wife. Several years ago, she worked for a corporation long
> enough to top out, pay wise, in her job code. In January of that year, she
> received an award for Employee of the Year. In addition to a fancy
> certificate and cash bonus, the company gave her a voucher for a week
> vacation at a Florida resort. When we got back from Florida the following
> May, she found a letter in her in-box that her services were no longer
> required. When she found that another person had been hired to do her former
> job at less than half the salary, she went to a lawyer --- a friend we've
> known for decades. His response was, "....nobody is guaranteed a job."

[Mike Granby]

wrote:

> Aparently a senior manager (executive level) told them
> in a meeting earlier in the month that there would be no
> layoffs, nobody would be losing their job. He then was
> the one to notify at least some of them of their 'voluntary'
> resignation.

Well, that sucks, but it's part of life. If you know about lay-offs
ahead of the date and you're asked about them, you cannot but lie and
say they won't be happening. Not nice. But it's part of a senior
manager's job.

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> I've never worked for NetJets. Someone close to me was.
>
> Honestly, I don't know the legalities where this is involved, and what
> the selection criteria was for the layoffs. But I do know that telling
> someone 'sign this or you won't get any severance pay' could pretty
> easily spawn a legal battle based on duress. The two I know are over
> 40, so age discrimination could be a factor. One was promoted into a
> position then a month or so later that 'position' is eliminated, the
> other was relocated from out of state. My reason for posting wasn't to
> indicate NetJets did anything illegally.. I'm not that closely involved
> in it. I posted it because it sickened me to hear the poor treatment
> they (and presumable many others) received.

You are correct. You don't know the legalities involved.

Matt

[Dave Stadt]

> wrote in message
ps.com...
> Aparently a senior manager (executive level) told them in a meeting
> earlier in the month that there would be no layoffs, nobody would be
> losing their job. He then was the one to notify at least some of them
> of their 'voluntary' resignation.
>
> I haven't seen the resignations that were wrote for them so I can't
> confirm this, but I heard they also disallowed any future employment
> with the company.
>
> It's getting complicated...
>
> Let's see...
>
> They make me quit, agreeing that it was my idea. I'm quitting because
> my job was eliminated, it was not in any way performance related... And
> I agree that I can never work for NetJets again in the future.
>
> The lawyers are going to have a field day with this....

I doubt it, Warren didn't get to where he is by making mistakes such as you
suggest. Based on your biased posts it is sounding more and more like they
were terminations due to performance issues. Don't forget we have 'at will'
employment in this country. Either party can terminate employment without
notice for no reason.

[Dave Stadt]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>> I've never worked for NetJets. Someone close to me was.
>>
>> Honestly, I don't know the legalities where this is involved, and what
>> the selection criteria was for the layoffs. But I do know that telling
>> someone 'sign this or you won't get any severance pay' could pretty
>> easily spawn a legal battle based on duress. The two I know are over
>> 40, so age discrimination could be a factor. One was promoted into a
>> position then a month or so later that 'position' is eliminated, the
>> other was relocated from out of state. My reason for posting wasn't to
>> indicate NetJets did anything illegally.. I'm not that closely involved
>> in it. I posted it because it sickened me to hear the poor treatment
>> they (and presumable many others) received.
>
> You are correct. You don't know the legalities involved.
>
> Matt

Nor does he understand the real world. Layoffs are a fact of life and age
is NOT a factor. Anyone that does not plan for the eventuality has only
themselves to blame when the hammer falls and they are left with an empty
bag.

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

I read somewhere that NetJets lost $143M in 2005.

john smith wrote:
> A friend was given notice at 4:00 PM Tuesday afternoon. No explaination
> was given for the layoff, only that it was not performance related. This
> was a top management level employee.
> The local news organizations have not yet picked up the story.

[Tom Conner]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I read somewhere that NetJets lost $143M in 2005.
>

I always felt that offering fractional ownership of a plane for business
purposes was not a sustainable business model. Corporate private flying is
primarily ego driven (must have plane - makes me look important), not
business driven. For most companies it is an unnecessary expense, so they
will eventually drop it. The next aviation business failure appears to be
the idea that very light jets can be used as business transportation between
small airports. Maybe, maybe not. The next few years will tell.

[Mike Granby]

BTIZ wrote:

> that means they can't collect un employment benefits

Not always. At least in this state the employer will receive a form on
which they can state (inter alia) that the employee resigned in which
case benefits may be denied. However, if the employer doesn't return
the form or fails to contest an appeal from the employee, benefits will
still be paid. It is not unknown for companies to agree not to fight
unemployment claims in a settlement agreement.

[Jay Honeck]

> depending what was in the contract they signed... I'm sure a few lawyers
> will be interested in these "voluntary resignations"..
>
> that means they can't collect un employment benefits

These folks will all get unemployment benefits, whether they are
eligible or not.

Remember: The bureacrats who run our government aren't interested in
fixing problems. On the contrary, they depend on more and more people
needing their help, in order to thrive. They therefore have an
unstoppable will (and, sadly, unchecked ability) to bring more people
into their care -- and this provides them with absolute job security.

I've seen the system in action (in Iowa and Wisconsin), and it is a
farce. If it weren't so sad, it would be laughable.

And we ALL pay for it, in the long run.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[john smith]

In article et>,
"Tom Conner" > wrote:

> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > I read somewhere that NetJets lost $143M in 2005.
> >
>
> I always felt that offering fractional ownership of a plane for business
> purposes was not a sustainable business model. Corporate private flying is
> primarily ego driven (must have plane - makes me look important), not
> business driven. For most companies it is an unnecessary expense, so they
> will eventually drop it. The next aviation business failure appears to be
> the idea that very light jets can be used as business transportation between
> small airports. Maybe, maybe not. The next few years will tell.

In some cases, perhaps. But in most cases, business is done face to
face. Corporate/private aviation is the only way to assure privacy and
timely contact. Airlines and their schedules are too unreliable.
Corporate executives that have the authority to make deals happen are
too valuable, highly compensated and their time is too valuable to have
them sitting around an airline gate where they can be recognized,
waiting for a plane that may or may not arrive and depart on time.
I worked for NetJets 12 years ago as a dispatcher. I saw where jets went
and who was onboard. I knew who was going, but not who they were
meeting. It was only after a deal was reported in the WSJ that I learned
who the target in a merger/acquisition was.

[Jose[_1_]]

> I worked for NetJets 12 years ago as a dispatcher. I saw where jets went
> and who was onboard. I knew who was going, but not who they were
> meeting. It was only after a deal was reported in the WSJ that I learned
> who the target in a merger/acquisition was.

Dispatchers didn't talk to each other?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[john smith]

> > I worked for NetJets 12 years ago as a dispatcher. I saw where jets went
> > and who was onboard. I knew who was going, but not who they were
> > meeting. It was only after a deal was reported in the WSJ that I learned
> > who the target in a merger/acquisition was.

> Dispatchers didn't talk to each other?

?

[Jose[_1_]]

>>Dispatchers didn't talk to each other?
>
> ?

If you know who's going where from your airport, and the (NetJet)
dispatchers from the other airports know who's going where from their
respective airports, much could be inferred by putting the info together.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> "Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The only thing I see
>> that might have been unethical was the horsesh... feathers about signing
>> a
>> voluntary termination note. That released the employer from any
>> obligation
>> for paying unemployment benefits. While it may have been unethical, it
>> was
>> NOT illegal.
>
> not knowing the US system: what would have been the outcome if he refused
> to sign the letter? He would have been fired with the same outcome (but
> with unemployment benefits).
>

Many (most?) states in the US allow professional employees to be terminated
without cause and without recourse by the employee. However, the employee
can still make the claim that he/she was improperly terminated (age,
religion, sex, etc.) and can sue the ex-employer. Even if the employee
loses in court, there can still be substantial legal expenses for the
employer, and there is always the chance that the ex-employee will win in
court.

So, many pragmatic employers offer a "golden handshake". I.E. if you'll go
away quietly, we'll compensate you financially. This usually involves
signing a document which releases the ex-employer of any legal liability for
terminating the employee. Once the document is signed, the ex-employee gets
a check, a series of checks, extended benefits, etc.

KB

> #m
> --
> NTSB Accident Report:
> THE PILOT IN COMMAND'S IMPROPER INFLIGHT DECISION TO DIVERT HER ATTENTION
> TO
> OTHER ACTIVITIES NOT RELATED TO THE CONDUCT OF THE FLIGHT.
> <http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X18632&key=1>

[Kyle Boatright]

"Tom Conner" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> I read somewhere that NetJets lost $143M in 2005.
>>
>
> I always felt that offering fractional ownership of a plane for business
> purposes was not a sustainable business model. Corporate private flying
> is
> primarily ego driven (must have plane - makes me look important), not
> business driven. For most companies it is an unnecessary expense, so they
> will eventually drop it. The next aviation business failure appears to be
> the idea that very light jets can be used as business transportation
> between
> small airports. Maybe, maybe not. The next few years will tell.


I agree. My employer purchased a G-IV some years back. If the CEO wasn't
aboard, the airplane wasn't going anywhere. The most frequent flights for
the aircraft were <300 mile hops to various high end golf courses and
resorts. The CEO got serious kicks out of having the biggest jet on the
field, wherever he flew. I think he eventually realized that people were
giggling behind his back at the (mis)use of such a capable aircraft, so it
was sold...

I remember going on a trip to the UK once upon a time when there were about
8 of us going to the same destination. One of our 3 senior VP's, our
corporate lawyer, a couple of other higher-ups, and several engineers and
managers. At that time, we were about 1 year into the G-IV and I realized
that we'd never use the airplane for its intended purpose when the 8 of us
all flew commercial.

[john smith]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> >>Dispatchers didn't talk to each other?
> >
> > ?
>
> If you know who's going where from your airport, and the (NetJet)
> dispatchers from the other airports know who's going where from their
> respective airports, much could be inferred by putting the info together.

That's not the way the system is set up.
All NetJet pilots in North America talk to NetJet dispatchers in the
North American operations center.
Nowadays, the dispatchers are grouped by aircraft type/fleet (Citation
X's, Falcon 2000's, Citation Excel's, etc.).
Back when I did it, NetJets had less than 100 aircraft (Citation IIS's,
Citation III's, Hawker 1000's). The day and night shifts were each
staffed by three dispatchers and a supervisor. Graveyard shift had only
one dispatcher.
We all had access to any aircraft's information.
The crew used to contact operations via telephone for a release and
trip/pax information prior to departure and again upon landing with
flight numbers . Now they communicate via Blackberry's.
There are separate operations centers for Europe and the Middle East.

[Jose[_1_]]

> We all had access to any aircraft's information.

A gold mine. Nobody put two and two together?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Clark]

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 21:56:11 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
> wrote:

>
>"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
>> "Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The only thing I see
>>> that might have been unethical was the horsesh... feathers about signing
>>> a
>>> voluntary termination note. That released the employer from any
>>> obligation
>>> for paying unemployment benefits. While it may have been unethical, it
>>> was
>>> NOT illegal.
>>
>> not knowing the US system: what would have been the outcome if he refused
>> to sign the letter? He would have been fired with the same outcome (but
>> with unemployment benefits).
>>
>
>Many (most?) states in the US allow professional employees to be terminated
>without cause and without recourse by the employee. However, the employee
>can still make the claim that he/she was improperly terminated (age,
>religion, sex, etc.) and can sue the ex-employer. Even if the employee
>loses in court, there can still be substantial legal expenses for the
>employer, and there is always the chance that the ex-employee will win in
>court.

I don't think that's necessarily what they're talking about here. If
presented correctly, this is a case of "We don't want you any more, so
sign this document which states that you resign, clean out your desk
and leave", not "your services are no longer required, thanks, go
home". Since the employee didn't resign at all but were released by
the company, is it legal for the company to make them sign
documentation stating that the employee initiated the severance, and
why would they create a paper trail in which it would appear the
employee quit rather than the employer initiating a staff reduction or
reorganization in the first place?

[Jose[_1_]]

>>>We all had access to any aircraft's information.
>
>> A gold mine. Nobody put two and two together?
>
> As I wrote previously, I could only see one side of the equation. I
> realized the investment potential, but didn't know the details.

To actually do so would be unethical and perhaps illegal, but I'm still
surprised it didn't happen. When you say "I could only see one
side...", is that because of your position? (would dispatchers have
been able to, had they thought of it?)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[john smith]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> >>>We all had access to any aircraft's information.
> >
> >> A gold mine. Nobody put two and two together?
> >
> > As I wrote previously, I could only see one side of the equation. I
> > realized the investment potential, but didn't know the details.
>
> To actually do so would be unethical and perhaps illegal, but I'm still
> surprised it didn't happen. When you say "I could only see one
> side...", is that because of your position? (would dispatchers have
> been able to, had they thought of it?)

One could speculate as to the target business found in the visited city
based on the businesses conducted by the client. Given the potential for
diversification, there really is no way to be certain. I suppose the
flight crew might hear something and could pass it on, but I have no
idea as to the legal issues that could be raised.
Ethically, it's all about money. If I am speculating, based on knowing
that representatives from company A is visiting city X, it is my risk.
For all I know, they could be preparing to sponsor a golf tournament.

[Jose[_1_]]

> One could speculate as to the target business found in the visited city
> based on the businesses conducted by the client.

The more interesting case is when two execs from different businesses
land within half an hour of each other at a third city, when a deal
between them might move the market.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...

>
>> The stockholders would certainly have an interest in knowing.
>
> Well, you think maybe the management will let them know without having to
> blab to the media?
>
>
>

If it's a publicly held company you can't do one without the other.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> depending what was in the contract they signed... I'm sure a few lawyers
>> will be interested in these "voluntary resignations"..
>>
>> that means they can't collect un employment benefits
>
> These folks will all get unemployment benefits, whether they are
> eligible or not.
>
> Remember: The bureacrats who run our government aren't interested in
> fixing problems. On the contrary, they depend on more and more people
> needing their help, in order to thrive. They therefore have an
> unstoppable will (and, sadly, unchecked ability) to bring more people
> into their care -- and this provides them with absolute job security.
>
> I've seen the system in action (in Iowa and Wisconsin), and it is a
> farce. If it weren't so sad, it would be laughable.
>
> And we ALL pay for it, in the long run.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Then you just aren't answering the forms correctly. One of my duties is
fighting unemployment claims on behalf of our clients. If you answer
correctly and keep your ducks in a row the claims are usually refused when
they should be. I do this for clients in several states. Most states deny UI
claims if the employee quit or was terminated for misconduct.

The biggest mistake employers make is trying to be "Nice Guys" and telling
an employee who is being terminated for, as an example, excessive
absenteeism, "Gee, Jay, we just don't need you anymore."

[[email protected]]

You don't pay for unemployment benefits, the companies do in the form
of unemployment insurance premiums.

Jay Honeck wrote:
> > depending what was in the contract they signed... I'm sure a few lawyers
> > will be interested in these "voluntary resignations"..
> >
> > that means they can't collect un employment benefits
>
> These folks will all get unemployment benefits, whether they are
> eligible or not.
>
> Remember: The bureacrats who run our government aren't interested in
> fixing problems. On the contrary, they depend on more and more people
> needing their help, in order to thrive. They therefore have an
> unstoppable will (and, sadly, unchecked ability) to bring more people
> into their care -- and this provides them with absolute job security.
>
> I've seen the system in action (in Iowa and Wisconsin), and it is a
> farce. If it weren't so sad, it would be laughable.
>
> And we ALL pay for it, in the long run.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Javier[_1_]]

In the long run, as Jay said, we all pay for it, since the cost of those
premiums is passed on to us consumers.

-jav

wrote:
> You don't pay for unemployment benefits, the companies do in the form
> of unemployment insurance premiums.
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> depending what was in the contract they signed... I'm sure a few lawyers
>>> will be interested in these "voluntary resignations"..
>>>
>>> that means they can't collect un employment benefits
>> These folks will all get unemployment benefits, whether they are
>> eligible or not.
>>
>> Remember: The bureacrats who run our government aren't interested in
>> fixing problems. On the contrary, they depend on more and more people
>> needing their help, in order to thrive. They therefore have an
>> unstoppable will (and, sadly, unchecked ability) to bring more people
>> into their care -- and this provides them with absolute job security.
>>
>> I've seen the system in action (in Iowa and Wisconsin), and it is a
>> farce. If it weren't so sad, it would be laughable.
>>
>> And we ALL pay for it, in the long run.
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993
>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[[email protected]]

Then why have unemployment benefits at all?

Javier wrote:
> In the long run, as Jay said, we all pay for it, since the cost of those
> premiums is passed on to us consumers.
>
> -jav

[Jose[_1_]]

> Then why have unemployment benefits at all?

For the same reason we have any insurance - spread the risk.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[john smith]

Joe, as you become more familiar with this group (if some of them don't
drive you off), you will recognize that the same few individuals will
take the original subjects off topic on a consistant basis. :-)

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> You don't pay for unemployment benefits, the companies do in the form
> of unemployment insurance premiums.

Did you think about his before you posted it? And where do the
companies get the money to pay their insurance? Hint: Jay was right.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> I don't understand the real world? You sound like my teenage daughter.

That is correct based on your last statement about who really pays for
uemployment insurance. You also don't understand how to post to usenet
properly. Hint: it isn't by posting at the top.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:

>> Then why have unemployment benefits at all?
>
>
> For the same reason we have any insurance - spread the risk.

And because we become more socialistic every day.

Matt

[Dave Stadt]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>I don't understand the real world? You sound like my teenage daughter.
>
> I don't recall saying anywhere that I believe the NetJets layoff was
> illegal, unlawful, or even wrong. A company that's having financial
> problems has to make adjustments to survive, and layoffs are a viable
> means.
>
> It cracks me up that a few of you armchair lawyers (who know nothing
> about what happened beyond what I wrote) jump in with your judgment
> that NetJets did no wrong... when I can't even tell you one way or
> another and I've read the documents and spoke with the 'voluntary
> resignees'.
>
> HOW a company choses to terminate employees is also done at their
> discretion, as long as it is done within the boundaries of the law.
> I'd be more than happy to give you an 'unbiased' report, but I've yet
> to hear NetJets' side of the story.
>
> Since they must be talking with a few of you in the know, I'm open to
> hearing what you know.
>
> Joe

I do believe you were the one that spouted law suit, discrimination and
several other legal opinions. Knowing who runs NetJets my money is on the
fact they had their ducks well lined up and the input you have provided from
sour grapes employees is probably somewhat distant from the truth. Been
there, saw what the employees claimed and knew the truth which was not even
close to what they were saying. Your lack of understanding of who really
pays for unemployment benefits (hint, look at your pay stub) leads one to
believe you might not have a good understanding of the employment laws in
this country. Having laid off numerous long term employees and fired many
for cause over a 25 year period you can bet I know the labor laws involved.
OBTW in case you think my views are one sided I have been on the other side
of the fence three times.

Layoffs suck and those that burn bridges tend to lose in the long run.
Those that see it as an opportunity in large percentages end up better than
they were. It's a 'get over it and get on with life' situation. In the
long run it's not a big deal.

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Matt Whiting" wrote)
> You also don't understand how to post to usenet properly. Hint: it isn't
> by posting at the top.


Oh June, we hardly knew ya.


Montblack

[[email protected]]

Having owned a business for only about 1/2 my life, I'll have to defer
to the experts on this.

Matt Whiting wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > You don't pay for unemployment benefits, the companies do in the form
> > of unemployment insurance premiums.
>
> Did you think about his before you posted it? And where do the
> companies get the money to pay their insurance? Hint: Jay was right.
>
> Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> Having owned a business for only about 1/2 my life, I'll have to defer
> to the experts on this.
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You don't pay for unemployment benefits, the companies do in the form
>>>of unemployment insurance premiums.
>>
>>Did you think about his before you posted it? And where do the
>>companies get the money to pay their insurance? Hint: Jay was right.
>>
>>Matt
>
>

You haven't learned much about economics during your tenure as a small
business owner. What kind of business to do you own?


Matt

[Dave Stadt]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>> Having owned a business for only about 1/2 my life, I'll have to defer
>> to the experts on this.
>>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>You don't pay for unemployment benefits, the companies do in the form
>>>>of unemployment insurance premiums.
>>>
>>>Did you think about his before you posted it? And where do the
>>>companies get the money to pay their insurance? Hint: Jay was right.
>>>
>>>Matt
>>
>>
>
> You haven't learned much about economics during your tenure as a small
> business owner. What kind of business to do you own?
>
>
> Matt

I think the key might be to determine how old he is.

[[email protected]]

How can I argue with someone who believes he knows not only the details
of a 12+ page separation agreement without seeing it, but also my
business strengths and weaknesses without even knowing who I am or what
I do? ;-)

All I can really say is the government or taxpayers have yet to pay any
unemployment for my employees. The business pays premiums for
unemployment benefits. Like any other form of insurance, if you have
claims made against the policy, the premiums go up.

You don't need to be an economist to understand this.

Matt Whiting wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Having owned a business for only about 1/2 my life, I'll have to defer
> > to the experts on this.
> >
> > Matt Whiting wrote:
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>You don't pay for unemployment benefits, the companies do in the form
> >>>of unemployment insurance premiums.
> >>
> >>Did you think about his before you posted it? And where do the
> >>companies get the money to pay their insurance? Hint: Jay was right.
> >>
> >>Matt
> >
> >
>
> You haven't learned much about economics during your tenure as a small
> business owner. What kind of business to do you own?
>
>
> Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> How can I argue with someone who believes he knows not only the details
> of a 12+ page separation agreement without seeing it, but also my
> business strengths and weaknesses without even knowing who I am or what
> I do? ;-)
>
> All I can really say is the government or taxpayers have yet to pay any
> unemployment for my employees.

So your customers are all folks outside the US or tax evaders?


Matt

[David Dyer-Bennet]

writes:

> All I can really say is the government or taxpayers have yet to pay any
> unemployment for my employees. The business pays premiums for
> unemployment benefits. Like any other form of insurance, if you have
> claims made against the policy, the premiums go up.

> You don't need to be an economist to understand this.

Huh, that's strange; we had two claims against our car insurance last
year, and it went *down* this year (same carrier and agent, same
policy, same car, no change in coverages). As usual, the real world
isn't as simple as some people like to think.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[john smith]

> Huh, that's strange; we had two claims against our car insurance last
> year, and it went *down* this year (same carrier and agent, same
> policy, same car, no change in coverages). As usual, the real world
> isn't as simple as some people like to think.

Insurance premiums vary depending on the return on investment of the
premiums dollars and the claims losses.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> -- and I'm STILL paying for it in the form of higher unemployment
> taxes, four years later.
>
> The system sucks. (I can tell you many more examples of acquaintances
> who have scammed the unemployment system over the years...)

I had one employee file on me, but I beat it.

An acquaintance needed some extra help on a big job, and things were slowing
down for me at the moment, so I told him he could employ two of my
employees, until his job was done.

Fast forward a month or so, and I called to see when they were going to be
back with me. He then informed me that he had decided to stay on with the
new guy, my former acquaintance, but nobody had gotten around to telling me.

Fast forward close to a year, and I get notice that he is filing for
unemployment. Turns out the new employer laid him off. I don't think the
other guy was above the table and paying unemployment, so he thought he
could come after me. I sent a letter, and I got an appointment for a
"telephone conference call hearing". The "judge" listened to both sides,
and said, "Thank you, I have what I need, and I'll be in touch." I later
got a letter releasing me of the obligation to pay.

One of the few times anything in court has gone my way.
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> writes:
>
>
>>All I can really say is the government or taxpayers have yet to pay any
>>unemployment for my employees. The business pays premiums for
>>unemployment benefits. Like any other form of insurance, if you have
>>claims made against the policy, the premiums go up.
>
>
>>You don't need to be an economist to understand this.
>
>
> Huh, that's strange; we had two claims against our car insurance last
> year, and it went *down* this year (same carrier and agent, same
> policy, same car, no change in coverages). As usual, the real world
> isn't as simple as some people like to think.

Yes, the real world isn't always logical. Were the claims your fault?

Matt

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Matt Whiting > writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
> > writes:
> >
> >>All I can really say is the government or taxpayers have yet to pay any
> >>unemployment for my employees. The business pays premiums for
> >>unemployment benefits. Like any other form of insurance, if you have
> >>claims made against the policy, the premiums go up.
> >
> >>You don't need to be an economist to understand this.
> > Huh, that's strange; we had two claims against our car insurance last
> > year, and it went *down* this year (same carrier and agent, same
> > policy, same car, no change in coverages). As usual, the real world
> > isn't as simple as some people like to think.
>
> Yes, the real world isn't always logical. Were the claims your fault?

Nope, clearly not (in the first case the car was legally parked when
someone backed into it; in the second someone ran a red light and hit
the rear quarter and *then* drove off, but got caught). And of course
that's a big part of the reason the rates didn't go up.

And in fact it *does* seem logical to me that claims not my fault are
less likely to bump my rates.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[[email protected]]

No. I've never had to lay anyone off. One time I had an employee quit
and later file for unemployment. I called her to ask what was going
on, since she had quit to change jobs. She said the job fell through,
and was too embarassed to ask for her old job. I hired her back.

Matt Whiting wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > How can I argue with someone who believes he knows not only the details
> > of a 12+ page separation agreement without seeing it, but also my
> > business strengths and weaknesses without even knowing who I am or what
> > I do? ;-)
> >
> > All I can really say is the government or taxpayers have yet to pay any
> > unemployment for my employees.
>
> So your customers are all folks outside the US or tax evaders?
>
>
> Matt

[[email protected]]

OK.. Let's say they *typically* go up after a claim, or a succession of
claims like NetJets is going to have. My point was that unemployment
is not an unfunded entitlement like welfare. Employers pay premiums to
offset the amounts that are paid out.

Before I was suggesting I wouldn't mind hearing NetJets side of the
story, but I found out they also laid off their PR Director -- er
wait.. Maybe that was another voluntary resignation too.

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> writes:
>
> > All I can really say is the government or taxpayers have yet to pay any
> > unemployment for my employees. The business pays premiums for
> > unemployment benefits. Like any other form of insurance, if you have
> > claims made against the policy, the premiums go up.
>
> > You don't need to be an economist to understand this.
>
> Huh, that's strange; we had two claims against our car insurance last
> year, and it went *down* this year (same carrier and agent, same
> policy, same car, no change in coverages). As usual, the real world
> isn't as simple as some people like to think.
> --
> David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[Newps]

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:


>
> And in fact it *does* seem logical to me that claims not my fault are
> less likely to bump my rates.


With State Farm if you have an accident that is the other guys fault and
he has no insurance or not enough you use your collision to cover it.
State Farm pays to fix your car and then goes after the other guy. You
get the first dollars they collect to offset your deductible. If they
come up short they eat it. Does not affect your rates. Other companies
no doubt do this as well, but not all.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Newps > writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>
> > And in fact it *does* seem logical to me that claims not my fault are
> > less likely to bump my rates.
>
> With State Farm if you have an accident that is the other guys fault
> and he has no insurance or not enough you use your collision to cover
> it. State Farm pays to fix your car and then goes after the other guy.
> You get the first dollars they collect to offset your deductible. If
> they come up short they eat it. Does not affect your rates. Other
> companies no doubt do this as well, but not all.

Depends on state law, too, but I'm in Minnesota, where "uninsured
motorist" coverage is explicitly required, and hence universally
bought (by people who are insured at all, such as myself). And I am
in fact with State Farm (and have been all my time in Minnesota); as
was the driver of the car that backed into mine in the first accident.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[Newps]

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:


>>
>>With State Farm if you have an accident that is the other guys fault
>>and he has no insurance or not enough you use your collision to cover
>>it. State Farm pays to fix your car and then goes after the other guy.
>>You get the first dollars they collect to offset your deductible. If
>>they come up short they eat it. Does not affect your rates. Other
>>companies no doubt do this as well, but not all.
>
>
> Depends on state law, too, but I'm in Minnesota, where "uninsured
> motorist" coverage is explicitly required,

That's great but that doesn't cover bent sheet metal, only bent humans.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> > I've seen the system in action (in Iowa and Wisconsin), and it is a
>> > farce. If it weren't so sad, it would be laughable.
>>
>> Then you just aren't answering the forms correctly. One of my duties is
>> fighting unemployment claims on behalf of our clients. If you answer
>> correctly and keep your ducks in a row the claims are usually refused
>> when
>> they should be. I do this for clients in several states. Most states deny
>> UI
>> claims if the employee quit or was terminated for misconduct.
>
> I would have thought so, too -- but it wasn't the case for us.
>
> Now, admittedly, as an employer I have a sample of one (1) person who
> has ever claimed unemployment against me (that's in three different
> businesses, from the 1980s till the present) -- but the experience left
> a bitter, bitter taste in my mouth.
>
> 1. Our employee gave a one YEAR advance notice to quit. (His "notice"
> slipped out at his wedding reception, which we were attending, when it
> was announced by his new father-in-law that the bride and groom were
> going to be moving out of state. Needless to say, our employee was
> deeply embarrassed by the way this came to light.)
>
> 2. Fast forward one year later. At the same time as his one year
> running out, we switched businesses, from newspapers to the hotel. I
> did everything I could to make sure that he had work right up till the
> end of his time -- even creating work for him -- so that he could have
> employment right up until he moved to Florida.
>
> 3. Upon arriving in Florida, he filed for Iowa unemployment, claiming
> that his job had been "eliminated".
>
> 4. I fought it, and explained what happened to anyone who would listen,
> including the administrative judge. Simple facts didn't matter to this
> bureacratic nightmare of a "judge", my former friend and employee won
> -- and I'm STILL paying for it in the form of higher unemployment
> taxes, four years later.
>
> The system sucks. (I can tell you many more examples of acquaintances
> who have scammed the unemployment system over the years...)
> --


[Playing Unemployment Appeals Judge]


Mr. Honeck, was there work available for the claimant at your firm . After
the termination?

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> OK.. Let's say they *typically* go up after a claim, or a succession of
> claims like NetJets is going to have. My point was that unemployment
> is not an unfunded entitlement like welfare. Employers pay premiums to
> offset the amounts that are paid out.

My point is that "we the people" pay for both. We pay for welfare
through tax assessments and we pay unemployment benefits through higher
prices for the products we buy. Same difference.


Matt

[atwus]

NetJets laid off an undisclosed number of employees yesterday in at
least the Ohio offices.

The employees (some as long as seven years) arrived at work yesterday
and were called into meetings where they were told their positions no
longer existed, their benefits end on Friday (June 30th), given a
document outlining the terms of their 'voluntary resignation', and
given an hour to remove their personal property. Two I spoke to said
they were not even assisted removing their belongings, or provided with
boxes/carts or anything. Their access badges were taken, so it was a
one trip deal.

I've seen people fired for 'just cause' get better treatment than these
'voluntary resignees' received.

Perhaps with Warren Buffet's recent donation to the Gate's Foundation,
he has lost concern for his human resources. But then again, they are
voluntarily resigning, so it's not really a layoff, right?


Everyone. All this talk about "right to work" and "helpless employees" is ridiculous. As a former union rep (yes I'm aware unions are not perfect), it is vital to understand that workers have many rights they are not aware of. Both Federal and State law protects workers in a variety of ways. Employers know that and go to great lengths through HR departments to protect themselves from potential lawsuits. They are fully aware that they must comply with protocols when terminating or laying off employees.

I know about the recent NetJets situation. A close friend was let go in a similar manner that has been described. Let me tell you that NetJets is completely out of line with the way they are handling this. And most important, they are not following Bombardier's own procedures; which is the parent company. Forget Berkshire right now. Bombardier has oversight when it comes to NetJets. Yes, they are a Canadian company. I can assure you, however, that they would be shocked at how these layoffs/reduction in workforce are being handled.

NetJets operates like a Mom and Pop operation with an HR department filled with amateurs. They rule by threat and intimidation. To say that workers operate in a hostile work environment is an understatement. Is it all bad? Of course not. But it is clear that NetJets has profound internal problems having been latched on to the big boys without itself evolving into a sophisticated corporate structure.

I believe strongly that a "class action" law suit should be entertained by all those currently suffering under this reduction in workforce. It is being handled in a manner not conducive to conventional HR policy or protocols. Moreover, Federal and State laws might have been violated with regard to age discrimination in certain cases. All of this must be looked into. The press needs to shine a spot light on this to get things going.