Help Our UAL Friends

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

Matt Barrow wrote:

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.

By that time, it's too late for that to do any good.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:F9AYe.10022$LV5.7416@trndny02...
Matt Barrow wrote:

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.

By that time, it's too late for that to do any good.

Why?

And what benefits might they renege on? (I "assume" you're not referring to
a contractual abrogation)

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

Matt Barrow wrote:

By that time, it's too late for that to do any good.

Why?

Let's say you got two job offers in 1984. One company offered you $30,000/year
with a retirement package that would continue to pay you 1/3 my salary if you
retire after 25 years. Another company offered you $32,000/year with no
retirement package. Both companies are assumed to offer similar percentage
raises as time goes on.

You have a choice. Accept the higher paying job and save for retirement or take
the lower paying job and go for the security. You take the security.

Twenty years later, your firm eliminates or heavily curtails the retirement
package (whatever their legal situation allows them to do). It's too late to go
back and get that higher salary that would have allowed you to build your own.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:37BYe.16451$Zg5.9169@trndny05...
Matt Barrow wrote:

By that time, it's too late for that to do any good.

Why?

Let's say you got two job offers in 1984. One company offered you
$30,000/year
with a retirement package that would continue to pay you 1/3 my salary if
you
retire after 25 years. Another company offered you $32,000/year with no
retirement package. Both companies are assumed to offer similar percentage
raises as time goes on.

You have a choice. Accept the higher paying job and save for retirement or
take
the lower paying job and go for the security. You take the security.

First mistake (actually, first two mistakes).


Twenty years later, your firm eliminates or heavily curtails the
retirement
package (whatever their legal situation allows them to do). It's too late
to go
back and get that higher salary that would have allowed you to build your
own.

That's part of the reason why #1 and #2 are mistakes.

Here's one that bit me (kinda) back in 1998: You work for a company for
seven years in which the company retirement plan is the company stock, (you
can ALSO take an independent 401K on your own). You can opt out at any
time, but you're not fully vested until your fifth anniversary. You can
rejoin, but must wait another five years to opt out again.

Company goes belly up, stock value goes from $105 to penny stocks in nine
months time.

Advantage #1: your wife, who works for one of the larger stock brokerage
firms (Investment ANALYST, not a SPECULATOR), has you opt out of the stock
plan after your five year anniversary and divest your portfolio (MSFT,
WALMART, INTEL). You lose only two years of stock value, not seven.

Advantage #2: Learning long before NEVER to trust all/most my funds in the
hands of someone I have no control over.

So many Americans "want their cake and to eat it, too"; it has a tendency to
bite one on the rump...badly.

I can see your scenario, but I also know that "security" is a chimera.


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

"John T" wrote in message
...
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?


Because the was the agreement when the employee was hired. If I hired you
and said I would pay you $10.00/hr and then handed you your first week
paycheck and only paid you $9.00/hr how would you feel about that?

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
news:X2AYe.70301$7f5.54144@okepread01...

"John T" wrote in message
...
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?


Because the was the agreement when the employee was hired. If I hired you
and said I would pay you $10.00/hr and then handed you your first week
paycheck and only paid you $9.00/hr how would you feel about that?

I'd feel like telling them to live up to their agreements or I'd take a
walk.

Since only real estate transactions need be in writing, and even dinky jobs
often have written stipulations (not a formal contract, but a written
statement), in many states that would be a violation of state law. In any
case, why would someone be willing to work for such folks?


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

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
news:X2AYe.70301$7f5.54144@okepread01...

"John T" wrote in message
...
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?


Because the was the agreement when the employee was hired. If I hired you
and said I would pay you $10.00/hr and then handed you your first week
paycheck and only paid you $9.00/hr how would you feel about that?

I'd feel like telling them to live up to their agreements or I'd take a
walk.

Since only real estate transactions need be in writing, and even dinky
jobs
often have written stipulations (not a formal contract, but a written
statement), in many states that would be a violation of state law. In any
case, why would someone be willing to work for such folks?


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



And taking a walk is all good and fine if you find out they screwed you over
after a week. But after 20 years just going to work for the competition
isn't going to help you much.