Glad to hear you're on a health kick. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelfixed
Printable View
Glad to hear you're on a health kick. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelfixed
An American once was rude to me so all Americans are rude.
Or
And American once was nice to me so all Americans are nice.
We can share anecdotes all day long, but just because some union reps behave like morons doesn't mean unions are bad. The sad truth is that without unions, companies would mess with employees even more than they do already. It's not like management in large corporations have the best interest of their employees at heart.
When management fires people not because there is no profit, and not because the profit is less than last year, but because the profit'growth' is less than last year, you can't argue that without unions things would be better. In our system, companies chase ever higher quarterly numbers to satisfy the stock market pyramid scheme.
Life is a sexually transmitted disease, and life will kill anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelfixed
Everyone should just build a bridge and get the eff over it. Failing that, "write a letter and give it to the chaplain."
Twinkies don't have a sell-by date but a halflife :)Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelfixed
I live about 2 blocks form the busiest bridge in the world. I don't need my own, the GWB is always available....Quote:
Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus
I learned about the halflife of Twinkies in my WMD Radiological/Nuclear EOD training classes. The information is on a "need to know basis." Since you have no "need to know" just pass me your Twinkies and I'll handle the problem for you.:tuQuote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
The IBEW's response:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crotalus
Setting the Record Straight on Hurricane Sandy Response
News article from Decatur, AL:
Decatur Utilities GM: Union Paperwork Was From Alabama | WHNT.com — Huntsville News & Weather from WHNT Television News19 HD
Quote:
(Decatur Utilities) DU General Manager Ray Hardin spoke about the matter at a news conference Friday afternoon. Some reports had circulated, claiming our local utility crews were turned away. The IBEW, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers denies that. Hardin also confirmed his crews were not turned away.
Hardin said his office received a 31-page document which implied a requirement of his employees to agree to union affiliation while working in New York and New Jersey. Earlier, it was thought that document came from IBEW. IBEW denied that, and Friday afternoon, Hardin clarified the paperwork came from Electric Cities of Alabama.
it's not so simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanjewell
There is the concept of error by omission and error by commission. Fox operated by the latter. They simply make things up and lie to get their point across. MSNBC uses the former. If they see a story favorable to the other side they just ignore it. That's a big difference. One makes everything suspect and the other just makes you look further to get the other side of the story.
I have no twinkies to give to you :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mvcrash
I live in Belgium. The land of chocolate. The good chocolate which counts as prized luxury in the US, is the stuff that is just everyday candy for us. In fact, good Belgian chocolate is cheaper than twinkies.
Twinkies don't exist here. As far as we are concerned, the production of twinkies is the conversion of perfectly good ingredients into toxic waste, unfit for human (or animal) consumption.
Yet we insist on using that logic with "management" and "corporations".Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Back in the good old days of a strong US dollar and a strong US economy I ate many a box of Guylain seashells. Too much $ for me to indulge now but I have fond memories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Yet we insist on using that logic with "unions" also which makes about as much sense. Could it possibly be that there are enough mallet heads on both sides to screw it up for the majority? Personally, through 34 years odd years of being a union worker working for the same large company, I think the latter is more to the truth of it. Glad I am retired and don't have to deal with those mallet heads anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by HNSB
Bob
Bruno
Still have fond memories of Belgium and buying chocolates by the Kilo and drinking Palm beer by the Liter. Thankfully Twinkies were never readily available here.
Bob
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobH
There are enough examples of union reps spoiling the game for everybody.
And there are definitely enough examples of corporate management being absolute pricks.
Unions as a concept aren't bad or evil, and neither are corporations.
Some people are morons and seek to better themselves at the expense of others.
They'll float to the top of whatever structure they are part of, corporate or union. Or politics for that matter.
you're right, and while there is certainly a difference between making stuff up vs. leaving out parts of a story that give you the full picture, they both seem dishonest to me. both scenarios play a bit fast and loose with what is "true" to forward whatever their agenda is to make you believe a certain way.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
i normally read a story from one side, then go to the other and get their take on it and settle with the notion that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
And I have exactly the opposite opinion about both services.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
"If you dont read the papers you are uninformed, if you do read the papers, you are misinformed." Twain
I know all of you have been waiting ever so patiently for my opinion, so here it is. If management could do it, they would force you to pay them. It was Unions that created the middle class. I remember a time and many places where the average house was not much bigger than my current kitchen, dining room and living room are now. Entire families living in a structure maybe 24' x 24', if that. My current home is a typical split level built in 1960, it is not a Mc Mansion.
There was a time when you didnt paint your house you whitewashed it, if you had the money. In the winter you could watch the snow come in through the cracks in the siding, insulation and interior walls were luxuries. Kids didnt go to doctors, there was no money for it.
My dad has a cousin who he grew up with in the '40's, once a year this cousin would get new shoes for Christmas, which was already two months into the winter season, going barefoot was not unusual for a lot of folks. You dont see this too much anymore and that is because of Unions.
I am not usually one to suggest you get your history lesson from Hollywood, but a movie called the Molly Maguires may be enlightening. Sean Connery and Richard Harris.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crotalus
The news is NEVER Wrong. They reported a partial story.
Friendly discourse between folks is fine. It keeps us all on our toes and thinking. Open minds are what is required.Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanjewell
It was all about INSURANCE, WORKERS COMP, etc........ for the workers in case of an accidentQuote:
Originally Posted by Crotalus
Have to love the media. "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." The food was spoiled, the out of state crews came and did wonderful work for us. I say again, god bless them and THANK YOU. (I had no power for 5 days and was restored by a PSE&G Crew.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wullie
Sacrilege I say!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hirlau
Now, if one wants to discuss how some of the management of all those crews was done, that is another story.
Cannot eat Cheetos and Doritos in a police car. Your fingers get colored and it transfers to some of the equipment in the car including the steering wheel. Now, Fritos and Twinkies work just fine. Fritos are a bit more complicated in the winter, the crumbs can get onto your tie.Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelfixed
To each their own. By the way, there is always a good supply of Belgian Chocolate as well as Hershey's Chocolate in my house. It keeps me safe from SWMBO at certain times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Crap floats.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Either way, they are not trustworthy. I have personally prepared written press releases regarding criminal investigations on many occasions. The reporting was so different than what was released, intentional or not, I wondered if it were the same investigation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crotalus
I saw the same thing when I was a paramedic. There were many times when the story printed in the paper was a complete fabrication. It's more like an article loosely "based on a true story" than a report of facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mvcrash
I've got some swampland in florida for sale, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
I thought all of Florida was swamp land...Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveW
Kinda like everyone who ain't from there thinks NJ is all like downtown Patterson and Newark ..... :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Mvcrash
True, but I grew up in Florida and most of it IS swamp.....lol. You failed to mention the murder Capitol of the world. Lovely Camden!!Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyHAD
First time I made a trip to "Joyzee", I was really surprised at some of the BEAUTIFUL country up there. Thought the "jug handles" at intersections was a nice touch too. Didn't like the fact that where I ended up had a NO IDLING law for trucks as it was colder than a well digger's bum when I was there. Spent a cold night in the sleeper that night.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyHAD
Oh, the people tawk funny too. ;) They sound like the folks at Port St Lucie, FL!:rofl2:
Make your own twinkies
How To Make Twinkies! - Video
***UPDATE***
Wow Gents: just wow...
If you read today's obscure news you'll find that they were raiding the staffs pensions to keep the company solvent. That's just stealing if you ask me!
More importantly!! For the first time (for me anyway) you hear that that is exactly why the union was putting up the fight!
If that really is the case - and seemingly it is -> the Union was 100% right!!
I read the story and really began to question if more regulation is really wrong! It reeks of the United States government dipping into our social security! Hope the man never goes broke :(.
My friend in NJ, who recently retired after driving for wonderbread for decades, said that they hadn't paid into the pension fund in years. They just stopped paying some time back. Indeed that was one of the contentions between the unions and the company. The teamsters signed on in spite of that but the bakers were not going to continue under those circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by earcutter
Rightfully so Jimmy - Jeepers man! I don't know how I missed that!Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyHAD
Seriously, no one likes to see a company fail but... when the writing is on the wall. It's like a flood taking the bottom two feet of you house and deciding to paint the top seven to make it look good lol. When its done... it's done.
That is a very common tactic. Outfits do that all the time.There is no law saying a private company can't go into the pension funds and remove the funds especially in situations where the employees contribute nothing to the plan or if they do as long as the employee contributions aren't touched. if they are that becomes a criminal matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by earcutter
One of the reasons many of the state and local govt pensions are underfunded is because the govt is supposed to match the weekly deductions and many simply stopped doing that years ago. The Federal Govt commonly raids the pension funds whenever there is a fiscal crisis and removes billions with the promise to make it whole again.
Pensions have always been a bone of contention. I don't know what the regulations are in the US but here in Ontario there is a provincial government department that is supposed to regulate company/employee co-pay pensions. They are supposed to oversee how the funds are invested to ensure that they are not in extremely risky schemes. Also, they can and have allowed companies to take "holidays" from their obligation to top up the pension plans. The upshot is that many pension funds are underfunded to the tune of 20% or more. You could easily wind up in a situation where the company goes south and in the government supervised windup of your pension plan you have your pension drastically reduced. So even if pensions are regulated there are loopholes for companies to borrow from plans by being allowed to take holidays from topping up. Virtually no pensions are 100% safe. I am talking about a defined pension benefits plan where there is a formula that fixes/guarantees the amount of money you receive on pension. That is opposed to non defined where you pays yer money and you takes your chances. Not a pretty picture anywhere you live.
Bob
Can you point me to the story that says the company was taking money from the pension funds? That's a much different thing than *not contributing to* the pension funds. If you have no money (it appears the folks backing the company here are really the ones who took the loss, the investors, and not the union workers. They were, instead, working and making a product that didn't pay for their demands, and living partially off of the venture capitalist dollars to continue to receive their checks).Quote:
Originally Posted by earcutter
I doubt any company took any dollars *out of* a private pension fund, and it is very unlikely that any of the employees bear any risk of not receiving the benefits they accrued.
If the individuals were in a multiemployer type pension, it is more likely that the funds negotiated with the companies to have a reduced or no contribution into the pension fund at the time, because the company wasn't making any money and didn't have it. To spring that back on the employer while outside funding is already paying the way for the employees is disingenuous.
In short, if you can't make enough money to make contributions to a pension plan, why would you expect someone else to pull money out of their pocket to do it for you? I haven't yet seen any suggestion that the company was doing anything other than losing money.
It's too bad they dragged down the teamsters along the way. Everything I've seen from the teamsters shows pretty good business judgement and realistic cooperation and they deserved better than to be dragged down by the bakers.
So get back to why again the bakers were putting up a fight? They were making demands in a company that was already losing money instead of deciding to work with management and figure out why they were losing money and what they'd have to do to *have* the money to make a pension contribution. Again, it appears they were working a subsidized job at the expense of private investors. They aren't the victims here.
The 'officers' of the company, executives, CEOs, no better than thieves ..... whatever you want to call them, gave themselves million dollar bonuses.... raises .... A judge in a court of law rescinded those long before the final dissolution of the company.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveW
The pension fund for the teamsters depends on employers contributing the amount they agreed on in contracts which denote that pension contribution as part of the hourly wage paid. By federal law an employer has to have his pension obligations met to a certain extent. I forget the exact terminology. Few do.
The union supports the pension fund through the employee/employer contributions. Without those contributions ...... if every signatory company defaulted there will be no pension for the union members. Remember Enron and Kenny Boy, GW Bush's buddy ?
Interesting. In our evil partially socialist system, pension funds are
a) safeguarded and
b) at all times completely inaccessible to companies for the purpose of withdrawal.
Your system is clearly much better :rolleyes:
The same is the case here. Pensions are paid to rank and file employees, regardless of whether or not a company defaults and regardless of whether or not they were fully funded. Jimmy just has no idea what the rules are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Private pensions are completely off limits in terms of withdrawing money, and they are not subject to creditor claims. They are at least as well protected here as they are in belgium. The ONLY threat to pension dollars for rank and file employees is a status change of the money in the pensions by the government or a change in the rate of taxation of distributed benefits.
Now you guys are completely off in the weeds and have no clue what you're talking about. But most of you have picked a conclusion long ago, and you have no concern with reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyHAD
IF there was a contract in place (not every company contributes or contributes at the same rate to a multiemployer pension fund, the contracts are negotiated between the funds/locals and the employers). IF the company had a contractual obligation to make an hourly contribution to the pension fund on behalf of the employees and couldn't do so because it didn't have the money to, that's a delinquent contribution. It happens.
The benefits the employees have in the plan are payable to the extent they are earned and covered by the PBGC, a quasi government agency that would be funded by taxapers if it itself went insolvent. Enron and your political wishes of making something irrelevent fit this have nothing to do with reality. People in enron lost their money because they had it in their 401ks and stock purchase plans, NOT because they lost defined benefit pensions. Any rank and file employees with benefits in an enron pension plan WILL BE PAID IN FULL because the PBGC guaranteed benefit, regardless of the funded status of their plan, will pay nearly $55000 in annual guaranteed benefits to an age 65 retiree in a PENSION plan. The guarantee is lower for a multiemployer plan because they have lower premiums and guaranteed levels, but it is still a substantial amount, and a long -service employee would still under any circumstance at all be able to get $1000+ per month from a completely broke pension plan plus social security.
IF every singatory company defaulted in fund the bakers are in, the plan would go to the PBGC and members would still be paid at the PBGC guaranteed benefit rate, even if there was $0 in the fund. What's more likely is that employees would be paid at the guaranteed rate and any excess dollars left in the trust would be allocated to accrued benefits above the guaranteed amounts. Whether or not current contributions are made by an employer over a period of a year or two has NO EFFECT on the funding level for past benefits in the long term, nor does it have any effect on whether or not a given member will be paid.
You guys really need to know what you're talking about before you start making assertions If something was done wrongly in the bankruptcy process, the judge will take care of it. It doesn't entitle anyone to making up complete falsehoods. If the company couldn't afford to make pension contribtions when it was already living on borrowed dollars, the fact that the remainder of the company wants to incent key people there who can actually assist in selling the remains of the business isn't comparable unless the dollars were both contracted and are of the same magnitude. I would imagine if there were delinquent contributions, they were at levels many many times the bonus levels.
If I'm not badly mistaken they won't get paid IN Full ...... they'll get a reduced percentage of the benefit agreed on in the contract. I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveW
DaveW - you are both right and wrong - Another Pension Bites the Dust: A Lesson from Hostess' Bankruptcy - DailyFinance
"To top it off, while the existing retirees may still be protected by the government backstop, younger Hostess employees aren't so lucky. A 45-year-old, for instance, will be able to get no more than $13,960.20 a year from the guarantee."
I work on pension plans for a living. Let's just air that out. Pardon my overreaction, I just see so much stuff all the time that isn't correct or even close (I even hear it on the bus, etc), and I already have bad manners to start off with. There's so much misnformation out there (and not talking about pensions, just in general) that I always wonder with all of the efforts that we all go through to spread information around, could we spread half as much information around and spend the other half of the time understanding what it is we're actually spreading.
The $55,000 or so limit was in reference to a situation like enron, which is a single employer plan. The limits are different for single employer and multi-employer plans. Why they are structured differently is probably a matter of lobbying and legal influence.
Multiemployer plans get coverage for 100% of the first $11 per year of service per month and 75% of the next $33 per year of service per month. They also pay much lower premiums to the PBGC. However, the bakers are likely part of a fund that involves a lot of other employers, and what really would happen, in theory, in a termination (which is extremely rare for multiemployer plans) is that the fund would have less money than *all* of the accrued benefits but more money than the guaranteed benefits (the monthly comment above), so participants in general will get something between full accrued benefits and the guaranteed amounts.
In a single employer plan, like Enron, the PBGC limit applies, and is age-adjusted for the starting payment date. Pardon me while I post this and go read that article quickly, I think I have a good idea where it will be incorrect and as soon as I confirm it, I will do so in another post....
I hear you... and feel for you lol! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveW
It's great that we have a resident pension dude on board lol! Thanks for your insights!
I'll re-read your posts later as I am working on a paper/presentation right now - but I hope to learn more! Sweet!
OK, the article is wrong. The figure they provided $13,xxx is representative of the guaranteed amount only for someone who STARTS to receive payments at age 45. It's extremely unlikely that the underlying plan actually allows anyone to do that, and even if it did, it would reduce benefits by so much that the participants early retirement benefit would be no greater than that.
I'm attempting to add a comment to that person's article, but I'm not able to.
But let's be clear here, the person age 45 would still have the exact same $55,000+ limit if they start payment at age 65. Starting payment at age 65 is vastly different than starting at 45. Obviously a dollar payment starting now for an individual age 45 is much more valuable than a dollar payment that doesn't start until 20 years have elapsed.
The reduction that the PBGC uses is a reflection of that. It implies numerically that a payment of $13000 or a little bit more per year for someone age 45 right now is worth the same as a payment of $55000 or a little more starting 20 years from now.
This is the comment that I attempted to post under that article (the site told me it's unable to allow the post because of "techincal problems"...maybe it doesn't like the dollar signs I put in my comment, I don't know. I guess a lot of DBs who get in comment sections to sell fake purses and shoes use dollar signs). At any rate, I guarantee you I am right and the writer is not. Nobody in my profession would make the mistake the writer did.
Chuck - you are incorrect about the PBGC guarantees. What you've provided looks to be an age-adjusted maximum amount for benefits starting at age 45. I don't know what the hostess salaried or non-union hourly plans (if they have such a thing) provide for individuals in terms of retirement, but it is extremely unlikely that anyone is eligible to start at age 45 without some long service requirement.
If a plan allows a 30 and out, and an individual age 48 would be limited to some amount above that $15,000, then that's bad luck. They could, however, wait until a later starting date, as late as age 65, and receive the full unreduced PBGC guaranteed amount if they have a benefit large enough to be covered by that amount and under a benefit structure in place early enough that it was clearly not a game to just increase benefits to take advantage of the limits.
In a more typical example, where a plan allows an individual to retire at age 55 with 10 years of service or some such thing, a participant might have a benefit payable at age 65 of $3000 per month (or $36,000 per year). The PBGC limit may be adjusted to (pick a number out of the air, I'm not going to look it up for this) $22,000 per year for someone who is age 55. You'd conclude that the participant has lost benefits, but that would be without clarifying that at age 55, the plan would also reduce a participant's benefits - typically by something like 50%. So the participant in this case would still receive 100% of their accrued benefit.
It's not the young participants who get nailed in an underfunded plans, it's the ones who have very rich early retirement benefits and those who are very highly paid. *Those* individuals only get paid above the guaranteed amounts if the allocation of remaining assets goes far enough to cover their benefits.