<<<"In which case, it would seem only fair that the pension plans of these blue collar workers should be protected from theft by the companies, eh?">>>
Now, now; lobbyists worked very hard for companies to be able to reduce the percentage of funding for those pension plans.
<<Those times are gone and DuPont no longer offers the pension plan to new employees, but did until a few years ago.>>>
GM doesn't have a pension for new hourly employees either since the 2007 contract.
Your talking about a public employee, not a company employee. DuPont established the pension back when they manufactured gun powder and families were left with nothing if the plant blew up. Those times are gone and DuPont no longer offers the pension plan to new employees, but did until a few years ago. It was the right thing to do, and it was right to take care of the obligations they made to employees who helped them grow and thrive so current employees have a place to work. Changes in the global competitive workplace, has made the old pension plan uncompetitive however. They now focus on matching contributions and reduced/contributory healthcare coverage, shadowing social norms and changes. They remain a strong and vibrant company.
We have no choice but to fire up the Soylent Green plants. I think that that
is part of the Obama Care Plan.
Seriously, you're right. It's a huge problem, a big pimple ready to burst.
That's why Stockton, CA is paying out 84% of revenue to retirees. I think this
explains why nobody decent wants to run for president. Who wants to grab that
The better companies do just that. DuPont has a pension program as a separate company...DuPont Pension Plan, so if DuPont were to get in trouble (VERY unlikely), the pensioners are protected.
I have a different take on pensions than some ofyou.
A company the size of GM have their hands full trying to pay competitive wages while the employee works for them.They have to compete against other nations with much lower labor cost.
You produce product, render service you get paid!
Why should the company have to pay someone after they have stopped working for them? It is not like they don't have current employees they must pay.
Then there is the health care. Company is expected to pick up the tab for the employee who retired at 55-58 and spend THEIR money to keep him healthy and alive until he is 90 so they can keep paying him a pension for many more years.
No company can survive that model. Only public service employees with unlimited taxes from us can pick up a tab like that.
My feeling is, a company should pay you enough money during your working years so you can live well and provide for your OWN retirement.
Most of you would balk at the idea of paying for an ex-wife. Especially if you have a new wife, yet see nothing wrong in GM paying someone like jeye many years after he has stopped working for them.
Personal responsibility is where we should head towards, not the union model of hands out at all times.
My own mother in law retired as a psychologist from a very reputable school district. Best I can determine is, she paid roughly $58,000 into it. Today at the age of 83, she has collected well over a Million and looks like she will continue to do so. Oh, did I mention they also pay for all her health care.
She doesn't need the money. She is well provided for. She lives with us. Guess whose pocket the money is going. Her overhead is minimal, due to her needs we have taken the responsibility of caring for her. Every month when her $4400 shows up, I cringe while I deposit the check.
We think we can sustain this for how long? I wonder what the retirement and benefits will look like for those who are working in her district now.
If you are trying to use John L. Lewis model to make yourself into a "middle lass", I can understand why you would think he represents what is good or bad about unions in 2012.
You are NOT Middle Class. Stop demanding wages and benefits and recognition as middle class because you are not!
If you are in the union, you are more than likely at a blue collar job. NOT middle Class. Even John L. Lewis didn't seek that.
He looked for fairness and a living wage and safer work conditions. We have other government agencies that are tasked for those responsibilities in 2012.
If your work place is unsafe and your employer insist on paying you below the minimum wage you can always contact the Labor Dept.and OSHA. Best part of it is, they are all tax paid departments. You don't need to pay dues or nuthin. It is all free.
But just remember, you are NOT Middle Class. You will be very disappointed to demand you become one holding a union job.
<<If all businesses could pay employees a dollar an hour>>
If people worked for nothing we would have full employment. Just like in the slavery days. It took a civil war to force capitalist to give up slavery!
If people worked for nothing we would have full employment.
That is silly. People don't have to work for nothing, but they do have to work
for market prices if there is to be full employment. If wages are lower and
production is increased (formerly idle people producing means more goods/
services brought to market), the increased production can only clear the market
at lower prices.
Slavery was inherited from the previous social order. It wasn't an institution
of capitalism. In fact, it was capitalism that brought it to an end. It was
only in the U.S. that a war was fought over slavery. The rest of the Western
world gave it up voluntarily.
"It took a civil war to force capitalist to give up slavery!"
Is that from the Idiots Guide to American History?
Surprised you are not quoting from Gone With The Wind!