NetJets Layoff

"Tom Conner" wrote in message
news

"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.

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?

"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?

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.

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"

"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."

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"

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"

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

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