Help Our UAL Friends

Jon A wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:38:02 GMT, John Theune
wrote:


Jon A wrote:

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:33:24 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:



"Jon A" wrote in message
m...


Unions are there to protect the working class from
unfair management practices, which unfortunately shows their true
colors.


What unfair management practices?


Ones that would be allowed to proliferate if no unions were present.
How about 14 hour work days with no breaks for starters? I really
don't believe that someone who is as learned as you appear to be would
ask that question. Check a history book if you want to know more.


Which has been turned into law, so the need for unions to enforce this
has pretty much gone away. What has not gone away is the ability for
unions to backmail companies into agreeing to contracts that cripple
their ability to compete. Unions played a important role in the
creation of fair labor laws to protect workers but the need for them in
that role has passed and now they are hurting the workers more then
helping them as a company that goes out of business employs no one.


Sounds like a pure republican talking.


You make it sounds like a bad thing, while I think it's a good thing.
If you would like to rubute my post feel free to, but assigning a
political label to me does not advance the discussion one bit.
John

"Jon A" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:38:02 GMT, John Theune
wrote:

Jon A wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:33:24 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Jon A" wrote in message
m...

Unions are there to protect the working class from
unfair management practices, which unfortunately shows their true
colors.


What unfair management practices?


Ones that would be allowed to proliferate if no unions were present.
How about 14 hour work days with no breaks for starters? I really
don't believe that someone who is as learned as you appear to be would
ask that question. Check a history book if you want to know more.

Which has been turned into law, so the need for unions to enforce this
has pretty much gone away. What has not gone away is the ability for
unions to backmail companies into agreeing to contracts that cripple
their ability to compete. Unions played a important role in the
creation of fair labor laws to protect workers but the need for them in
that role has passed and now they are hurting the workers more then
helping them as a company that goes out of business employs no one.

Sounds like a pure republican talking.

I think he sounds like reality, and that's no political party. Take te AA
F/A tantrum a while back, when the company was about to file for bankruptcy.
There's only one reason why they did what they did -- because they could, to
stomp on the ground and scream "You brute! You brute! You brute!
Wwwwaaaaaaaa!" What was hilarious to me was their complaining about a
standard practice in companies in trouble who need to keep their key
personnel -- retention bonuses. There's a zillion F/A's out there, and many
more wannabe's on the streets. Finding a top exec or key manager that can
take over a key position when the company is in trouble is damn near
impossible. But of course, expecting a union to recognize this is just as
impossible, especially when hormones, or a lack thereof, get in the way.

"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?

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

"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:

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

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...


Look further and you will find a once great airline that was more or
less
taken over by hotel people and run into the ground.
Also notice that huge (then) golden parachute that one CEO got
when they let him go.
Also notice how they raided the IAM employees overfunded
pension fund for cash to buy another hotel chain.
...and on and on and on.

Proctor and Gamble runs airlines and hotel chains?


For Christ sake, the subject is (was) UAL!
Pay attention. But thanks anyway for the good lead in
to something that has had me ****ed for over 20 years.

Pay attention yourself; the issue under discussion is HOW the situation
came about.

From where I stood, right there on the front line, 'HOW' began
when the hotel people saw a cash cow and took over UAL. When
one of the upper hotel types referred to us mechanics as "overpaid
bellhops," it sure didn't help. My neighbor, a service writer for a
car dealership, had a lot more take home pay than I. I suppose
the satisfaction from being able to maintain and certify a DC-10
for a pea soup fog landing at SFO was supposed to cover the
difference. ( In a way, it did. I sure loved that job. )

Do you suppose that the overfunded IAM pension fund, if left
to draw intrest, would be in much better shape today instead of
being ripped off to buy the Sheraton Hotels and put into the
shape it is? The ESOP buyout was intended to save an airline
that was on a downward spiral. Too bad it didn't work.
I guess when the U logo morphed into a WI it was too late.

If you can't handle abstractions (that decidedly and distinctive human
characteristic) then start a sub-thread.

PKB You've gone and appointed yourself net-nanny? The thread
that Orval started was practically addressed to me, a 27 yr UAL vet.
I've been glued to it since and only your appropriate post about
home-grown management prompted me to post a comparison to
the airline, almost as old as soap (P&G).
I have no idea why you got that burr under your saddle.

Also, how long has it been since the union owned UAL?

I suppose you mean back when they started giving us ESOP
stock instead of COL payraises. Want to buy mine?
'taint worth much.

UAL sold off The Hertz Corporation, Westin Hotels, and Hilton
International Hotels in 1988. It is a bit of a stretch to believe that
raiding the United cash cow 17 years ago is the singular cause of the
current fate of United.

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
news:WKBYe.68943

From where I stood, right there on the front line, 'HOW' began
when the hotel people saw a cash cow and took over UAL. When
one of the upper hotel types referred to us mechanics as "overpaid
bellhops," it sure didn't help. My neighbor, a service writer for a
car dealership, had a lot more take home pay than I. I suppose
the satisfaction from being able to maintain and certify a DC-10
for a pea soup fog landing at SFO was supposed to cover the
difference. ( In a way, it did. I sure loved that job. )

Do you suppose that the overfunded IAM pension fund, if left
to draw intrest, would be in much better shape today instead of
being ripped off to buy the Sheraton Hotels and put into the
shape it is? The ESOP buyout was intended to save an airline
that was on a downward spiral. Too bad it didn't work.
I guess when the U logo morphed into a WI it was too late.

If you can't handle abstractions (that decidedly and distinctive
human
characteristic) then start a sub-thread.

PKB You've gone and appointed yourself net-nanny? The thread
that Orval started was practically addressed to me, a 27 yr UAL vet.
I've been glued to it since and only your appropriate post about
home-grown management prompted me to post a comparison to
the airline, almost as old as soap (P&G).
I have no idea why you got that burr under your saddle.

Also, how long has it been since the union owned UAL?

I suppose you mean back when they started giving us ESOP
stock instead of COL payraises. Want to buy mine?
'taint worth much.