FYI, JA screws the long time employees
BBT's board of directors on 10/26 voted to eliminate the post retirement health care subsidy effective January 1, 2005 for new retirees. They will also be reducing the subsidy paid to existing retirees. I guess
we will be asked to use both sides of the
toilet paper next.
I speak of living in the wild, the real wild. Millions would not even consider leaving their cities to go to such a place. I come from way back, and lived off the land in the wild. Since I don't live there now, I always have a ready supply of everything needed to survive for an extended period of time. Under todays system thats all we can do until we get back to the wild.
Given the space and opporunity, yes, I could survive. Problem is, the way our geography looks now, especially in the east, sustinance living would be a little rough. If the the country turns to S$%^ tomorrow, you and I would not have the land to farm, or the resources with which to survive long term. There would be millions of people competing along side us for the same resources and it would get ugly fast.
Assets and money won't mean a whole lot when most of the country is looking for a meal instead of accumulating assets.
As for those successful government programs.......
When you run in and out of the grocery store this weekend, think about what would happen if in the next few years you had to grow all the food you just tossed in to the cart. I've been there, it's not fun.
I am striving to survive and succeed also, but that does not mean I am not always looking to help when I can.
Man is a social animal and will always be interdependent upon one other.
Well guys, one can have sympathy for their fellow man, and look out for themselves simultaneously. Turn that around, and notice the fellow man is looking out for himself. Can I do all those things you ask? No. But I can survive. I know not only how to grow food, but what food is already growing that I can survive on. I know where and how to find water and make it safe. I know how to make clothes and build shelter. I know how to make fire. I know how to travel without gasoline and do without electricity. I also know that if you do not do for yourself, few will help you. Those few are scattered so good luck in finding them. I dont like the fact that many are having health ins reduced, and that others won't be getting any. The fact is, I can't control that. I can control how I will deal with it. By thinking about it, and doing as much as I can about it. The way Ive lived my life since the beginning when I had to learn all those things above. Staying ahead of the game. By staying ahead, I have assets to cover the time until I am enrolled in all those successful govt programs. Yes I can survive. Can you?
In response to a later post:
When the world really gets to be 'every man for himself', we will all be walking around with six shooters on our hip.
Not one of us can survive without help from another, I don't care how much stock you own.
Can you grow your own food? Generate your own electricity? Refine your own gasoline?
Working hard, trying and not succeeding is acceptable. Having no empathy for you fellow man is unforgivable.
<<<it's about the *ethics* of the current Capitalist system itself.>>>
We are a pro-business �Ownership" society. It�s every man for himself.
If you want capitalism where the corporation is beholden to the employee, like Europe, then vote for the socialists�er�the Democrats.
Otherwise shut up, be happy with �Ownership Society� Bush, buy more stock, and rely on NO ONE but yourself!
You haven�t even begun to see broken promises yet. Wait till the government can�t afford Social Security and Medicare. That�s when the broken promises will really hit home.
Those of us who own stock will survive. Those of you who don�t will barley make it. Those of you who think others will pay your way even though you have �earned it� or were �promised� it are going to starve. Welcome to the �Ownership Society.�
The only reason an employer should pay healthcare benefits to a retiree is if there is a written contract with the employer that guarantees benefits after retirement. No written contract, no benefits. The problem with most of the contracts is the fine print that says with notice the employer can change the benefits when ever they wish, for almost any reason. Very unfair/unjust. I have experienced these kind of changes since I retired.
Perhaps what some are alluding to might be termed part of the unwritten "social contract" between employee & employer.
"social contract - an implicit agreement among people that results in the organization of society; individual surrenders liberty in return for protection"
The complaint here is that those who are *ALREADY* receiving said protection (in this case, med. insur. benefits) from the larger entity have a reasonable (tho' not 'legal') expectation of continuing to receive same.
It's likely that many of the retired former employees can no longer make appropriate adjustments if this protection is diminished or discontinued.
This isn't rocket science, nor is it about the LEGAL hocus-pocus of undistinguished disclaimers buried within a sizable document...it's about the *ethics* of the current Capitalist system itself.
When the system discards reasonable (tho' not 'legally' guaranteed) promises to employees for the sake of the current quarter's bottom line - it fails. Nor does it instill confidence or loyalty in current employees.
It all becomes a race to the bottom...
In generally, I do not challenge others opinions unless I see something inherently wrong with their statements. Sometimes when you corner someone with the facts, they come out screaming.
Kinda sounds like the recent election eh Wilson. As I've said here before, I never worked for BBandT, but have a 40 year association with them. Hell even I know what the employment contract says. It never was hidden. Like you I don't always agree with their methods or decisions. You will never get anywhere in a Corporation if you don't support them. In my long life I have found the biggest reason for dismissal other than incompetence is an incompetent employee running his or her mouth about supervisory employees, or about decisions made. It's amazing how short a time it takes for that word to reach management. It would then seem reasonable to me to think that those same folks are espousing same in here. For those of you in Rio Linda look up espousing. I like Wilson will no longer do your work for you.
One poster in here once chastised me as not knowing what it feels like to be fired or rif'd. Well I know the feeling and I had a close relative rif'd. If you know you won't have insurance at retirement, do something about it now. Unfortunately it's called the law of the jungle. If you like the green on the other side go get it. If you aren't satisfied with your current situation do something about it. No one else will do it for you.
Wilson, you just don't get it. Or won't admit it. The only point being made here is, "it seemed like the thing to do at the time" does not make it right. Call it reality, call it business, call it greed, call it capitalism.....
In the end, a coporation is just a piece of paper requiring the leadership of that corporation to follow specific guidelines while conducting business. Strong arm is just as immoral in business as on the street.
Ever hear the saying, "don't piss down my back and try to tell me it's raining"?
Still: You are right. It is difficult to argue against facts. Jim has done a yeoman's job in attempting to distract us from those facts. Lest we forget, Jim asserted that BB&T broke its promise and used as the premise for this untruth alledged hear-says and innuendo. Finally, he suggests it must be a lie because the truth is found in a comprehensive, multipage document, a document that essentially spells out in detail all the various benefits BB&T provides for retirees. There was no small type and he's certainly doesn't understand the purpose of a disclaimer. The language is not hidden or secluded from the rest of the document. It is part of the main text. BB&T did not break any promises. That is the lie that Jim and others would have this board believe. Now if they want to debate on the merits of the decision, that's one thing. But I'd rather they do it in a nonaccusatorial manner. It's a lot more productive.
In generally, I do not challenge others opinions unless I see something inherently wrong with their statements. Sometimes when you corner someone with the facts, they come out screaming. For example, jcountybanker. Hopefully, he will garner the support of his employees in much the same way BB&T has garnered my loyalty. I proudly stand by the very company that feeds and clothes my family. I don't always agree with the bank's position. They do make mistakes, admit them and go on. Shareholders, by and large, have had every reason to question and challenge management over the years. It is their right. It keeps everyone on their toes. And that's a good thing. But there is no room for untruths, rumors and hear-say. That is where I draw the line.