boycott united forever

"RomeoMike" wrote in message

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

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

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

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

-c

gatt wrote:

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

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

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

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


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

kontiki wrote:

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

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

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

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

-Robert

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:xtVge.4964$1f5.4519@trndny01...
gatt wrote:

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

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


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

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

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message

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

To whom is this addressed?!