Help Our UAL Friends

I suggest you lock up the Congress critters as UAL and the other legacy
carriers are only doing what the law permits. If they were ignoring the
law, the SEC would have done a number on them long ago for incorrect
financial reporting by a public company.

"Carl Ellis" wrote in message
.. .

Closing the door after the cow leaves, but ...

The government needs to throw the *******s who underfunded the pension
plan
in prison. After that, no executive will consider letting a plan get
in
that position.


- Carl -

"sfb" wrote in message news:luAXe.1713$Az1.376@trnddc07...
I suggest you lock up the Congress critters as UAL and the other legacy
carriers are only doing what the law permits. If they were ignoring the
law, the SEC would have done a number on them long ago for incorrect
financial reporting by a public company.

I think that the time has come and past, where companies can so easily dodge
a pension plan's obligations. There should be laws passed to protect all
pension plans, by holding them in trust, or whatever means are necessary.
Allowing them to dodge them is, IMHO, a breach of contract.

Who is going to pay for all of the people who lose their pension, as they
get aged, and were planing to live off it? You and I, the younger worker,
one way or the other.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

Who is going to pay for all of the people who lose their pension, as they
get aged, and were planing to live off it? You and I, the younger worker,
one way or the other.


Yes, because money will be taken from us unlawfully and given to them. So
what good are laws?

"Morgans" wrote in message I think that the time has come and past, where
companies can so easily dodge
a pension plan's obligations. There should be laws passed to protect all
pension plans, by holding them in trust, or whatever means are necessary.
Allowing them to dodge them is, IMHO, a breach of contract.

There ARE laws in place. And there are a few Congress critters who exercise
intelligence of a higher order. A couple of them wrote guidelines for
'defined contribution plans (401k)'. Most workers with defined benefit plans
scoffed at 401k plans, but 401Ks aren't looking so bad now. Which plan do
the profitable carriers offer?

D.

("sfb" wrote)
I suggest you lock up the Congress critters as UAL and the other legacy
carriers are only doing what the law permits. If they were ignoring the
law, the SEC would have done a number on them long ago for incorrect
financial reporting by a public company.


25% of this country's economic problems can be directly traced back to the
SEC and their inability to come up with clear accounting rules - and then
enforce them in any meaningful way. [Cite? Me]

Agreed on point A: Pensions should be off limits to Lee Iacocca CEO types.
Over funded
my ass -- for today maybe. How about in 12 years? Oops, a turn around in the
numbers? "Congress" (meaning you$$ you$$ you$$ and you$$) ..."help!!"


Montblack

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("sfb" wrote)
I suggest you lock up the Congress critters as UAL and the other legacy
carriers are only doing what the law permits. If they were ignoring the
law, the SEC would have done a number on them long ago for incorrect
financial reporting by a public company.


25% of this country's economic problems can be directly traced back to the
SEC and their inability to come up with clear accounting rules - and then
enforce them in any meaningful way. [Cite? Me]

Agreed on point A: Pensions should be off limits to Lee Iacocca CEO types.
Over funded
my ass -- for today maybe. How about in 12 years? Oops, a turn around in
the
numbers? "Congress" (meaning you$$ you$$ you$$ and you$$) ..."help!!"


Montblack


The company has an obligation to provide benefits and has to fund the plan
to provide for those benefits. Overfunding belongs to the Company.

Mike
MU-2

("Mike Rapoport" wrote)
The company has an obligation to provide benefits and has to fund the plan
to provide for those benefits. Overfunding belongs to the Company.


Agreed - however on the back end, not the front end based on outmoded
projections.


Montblack

Montblack wrote:

The company has an obligation to provide benefits and has to fund
the plan to provide for those benefits.

Agreed - however on the back end, not the front end based on outmoded
projections.

Why does the company have an *obligation* to provide benefits?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

In article ,
"John T" wrote:

Montblack wrote:

The company has an obligation to provide benefits and has to fund
the plan to provide for those benefits.

Agreed - however on the back end, not the front end based on outmoded
projections.

Why does the company have an *obligation* to provide benefits?


If they offer benefits as one of the benefits of your working for them,
rather than for a competitor, then renege on the deal after so many
years, you would have a pretty good reason to be upset.

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"John T" wrote:

Why does the company have an *obligation* to provide benefits?


If they offer benefits as one of the benefits of your working for them,
rather than for a competitor, then renege on the deal after so many
years, you would have a pretty good reason to be upset.

And a very good reason to go work for their competitor.

(Not to mention start your own business and give yourself infinite benefits)

--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO