boycott united forever

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'.

"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.

"aluckyguess" wrote in message
...
Their is only one person who will take care of you and that is yourself.
The corporate world has to answer to the stock holder not the employee.


And customers.

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 May 2005 19:04:40 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

Not to diminish what has happened at United, but it was reported on NPR
that
United pensioners are guaranteed their pensions, up to $45K annually.

The guarantee of course is by the American taxpayer. (Speaking of the
nation, not the airline.)

I have little sympathy for airline employees, who in the good days set
the airlines up for future bankruptcy much as the United Auto Workers
did. (To be sure, the airlines and the auto mfgrs were enablers.)


I remember the media crowing about how good it was going to be for United
when the union became the primary stockholder (IOW, the OWNER of the
COMPANY).

UAL was going to become the Workers Paradise®.

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Mike Rapoport wrote:
It isn't supposed to require either a leap of faith or the company
remaining
in business. The Company is suppose to deposit money to fund the
pension
plan which is a trust with an independent board. The funds are
professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough
to
pay the promised benefits.

One could make the same argument that Social Security is supposed to be
just that:
"professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough
to
pay the promised benefits." But even that is no longer sacrosanct.

The only real solution to all of this is for people to take charge of
their
own retirement via their own personal accounts that they themselves
manage.
When you delegate this responsibility to some other party you do so at
your own risk.


The term is "beholden".

When you demand the taxpayers bail you out of your stupid and adolescent
decisions, the term is "parasite".

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
. net...

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Mike Rapoport wrote:
It isn't supposed to require either a leap of faith or the company
remaining in business. The Company is suppose to deposit money to fund
the pension plan which is a trust with an independent board. The funds
are professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be
enough to pay the promised benefits.

One could make the same argument that Social Security is supposed to be
just that:
"professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough
to
pay the promised benefits." But even that is no longer sacrosanct.

The only real solution to all of this is for people to take charge of
their
own retirement via their own personal accounts that they themselves
manage.
When you delegate this responsibility to some other party you do so at
your own risk.


I agree with most of what you say.

Social Security was a well thought out, adequately funded program when it
was inplemented in 1935.

Well thought out? You're kidding!!!

The problem came when people started looking at it
as a retirement program. In 1935, life expectancy was 63.

And just 5 years earlier it was 49. Now, if it was so "well thought
out"...ah, forget it. Several economists predicted it was going to be a
boondoggle before the ink was dry of FDR's signiture.

The only thinking involved was those grabbing for power.

Social Security
was envisioned as insurance against being injured or killed on the job and
also it would provide income if you lived past 65 an age where you would
be
uncompetitive in the workforce.

It ws, and it's name defined, that it was SUPPLEMENTAL.

It was also VOLUNTARY.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho...n/1005355.html



It was a reasonable approach that got

Gee, the same system failed every where else...how reasonable is that?


derailed when the underlying assumptions started to change (life
expectancy)
and the program didn't change with it.

Lord Acton and James Madison come to mind.

StellaStarr wrote:

You seem to think a pension is some kind of welfare.
It's money you arranged to have taken out of your paycheck, to save
up
for retirement.

You know...a "personal account."

And the "sitting around" part is supposed to be the retirement they
worked for all those years. They were wrong to plan for that?

One of us seems to be failing to understand something...

I think you missed the boat there Stella. I'm not sure what you're
describing, but it is not a pension.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message 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.

$45k is the maximum. Very few will get that amount. I work with a flight
attendent who had 19 years, 11 months in at Eastern when they went tango
uniform. Being 1 month shy of 20 years, and being well shy of 60 years of
age, means she will get less than $300/ month at retirement (if the PBGC
isn't dissolved). This is much more prevalent than the $45k/yr figure touted
in the press.

Employees with a pension plan give up other benefits, usually more pay, for
the promise of a retirement pension. When those promises are broken, the
employee ends up with nothing in exchange for many years of concessions.
Most of these people put their trust in Big Corporate Brother and will pay
dearly in their less productive years.

You don't have a pension, but I bet your retirement will be a lot nicer for
not counting on Big Corporate Brother.

D.

"John Galban" wrote

StellaStarr wrote:
You seem to think a pension is some kind of welfare.
It's money you arranged to have taken out of your paycheck, to save
up for retirement.

I think you missed the boat there Stella. I'm not sure what you're
describing, but it is not a pension.

From the Wikipedia...the on-line encyclopedia:

A "pension plan" or "retirement plan" is an arrangment by which an employer
(for example, a corporation, labor union, government agency) provides
income to its employees after retirement. Pension plans are a form of
"deferred compensation" and became popular in the United States during the
1930s, when wage freezes prohibited direct pay (in the form of salary) to
increase.

John...note the "deferred compensation" part. Sounds sorta like what
Stella wrote.

Bob Moore

Bob Moore wrote:
From the Wikipedia...the on-line encyclopedia:

A "pension plan" or "retirement plan" is an arrangment by which an
employer
(for example, a corporation, labor union, government agency) provides

income to its employees after retirement. Pension plans are a form of

"deferred compensation" and became popular in the United States
during the
1930s, when wage freezes prohibited direct pay (in the form of
salary) to
increase.

John...note the "deferred compensation" part. Sounds sorta like what

Stella wrote.


The deferred compensation described sounds like the company promising
to pay you later (originally because they couldn't afford to pay now).
Stella's description sounded like some sort of individual account, like
a 401K, where actual earned dollars (not deferred) are used.

A 401K (or similar individual retirement account) is usually not
under the direct control of a company, and cannot be squandered by
them. A promise by a company to pay your salary after retirement is
just that. Words.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)