boycott united forever

"Christopher Campbell" wrote in message
...



On 5/12/05 1:21 PM, in article , "gatt"
wrote:


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:cNNge.76189

Speaking as one of the millions who have never had a pension plan -- and
never will -- $45K per year for sitting around the house sounds pretty
danged good.

Of course, that pension will now be paid out by We, the People, instead
of
They, the Stockholders...

Yep. Corporate welfare, and never a demand for accountability.

You guys suppose that if a General destroyed his entire brigade or
division,
they'd give him a $1.5 million dollar pension and let it go?

Let's not forget that it is these employees who are largely responsible
for
running the company into the ground. CEOs come and go, but the employees
ran
it from day to day. They made unreasonable demands in bad faith, sometimes
threatening to strike if the pot was not sweetened even more. In the end,
the company was entirely owned by the employees. They hired the CEO. They
fired him. They decided how much he should be paid. Now whose fault was
that?


Good points all! To add another: Anybody, including United employees could
see, in easily obtainable documents, that United was not funding its pension
obligations for many, many years. Any United employee who is surprised that
they aren't going to get their pension is a fool. The handwriting has been
on the wall for years, perhaps decades.

Mike
MU-2

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
Good points all! To add another: Anybody, including United employees
could see, in easily obtainable documents, that United was not funding its
pension obligations for many, many years. Any United employee who is
surprised that they aren't going to get their pension is a fool. The
handwriting has been on the wall for years, perhaps decades.

Is it every employee's responsibility to monitor pension funding? If not,
who's responsibility is it?

Just because the information is publicly available, that doesn't mean it's
the fault of someone other than the entity responsible for actually funding
the pension that it didn't get funded.

I can see good reasons for why the "victims" here aren't entirely blameless.
But put blame on them just because they weren't performing watch-dog duties
seems unreasonable.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
Good points all! To add another: Anybody, including United employees
could see, in easily obtainable documents, that United was not funding
its pension obligations for many, many years. Any United employee who is
surprised that they aren't going to get their pension is a fool. The
handwriting has been on the wall for years, perhaps decades.

Is it every employee's responsibility to monitor pension funding? If not,
who's responsibility is it?

Just because the information is publicly available, that doesn't mean it's
the fault of someone other than the entity responsible for actually
funding the pension that it didn't get funded.

I can see good reasons for why the "victims" here aren't entirely
blameless. But put blame on them just because they weren't performing
watch-dog duties seems unreasonable.

Pete

You are right in a perfect world. In the current world you need to depend
on yourself or others that have the same interests as you do. Funding
pension liability is a cost for the employer and it is income for the
employee. It is easy to see why the company wants to minimize the
contributins and why the employee should want third-party confirmation that
the contributions are made.

In the United case, if the pensions had been fully funded, the company would
have gone bankrupt years ago.

Mike
MU-2