Pension theft: Dump United Air scoundrels

In article ,
Tam wrote:

workers
think they can defy the laws of economics and that their "vested rights"
supersede those laws face unemployment and evaporation of pensions.

There ain't no justice in all this: it's your economics, and your government
policy, and globalization and all the rest at work.


There's a lot of truth in this, of course -- but when pensions evaporate
a lot of entirely innocent non-hothead employees and other ordinary
people can get severely damaged.

In a decent society, IMHO, all pensions that "ordinary folks" count on
when they go to work should be fully vested more or less from the start,
and sufficiently secured through independent, prudent and conservative
financial management, backed up by government regulation and oversight,
that they just _can't_ evaporate, ever.

In article ,
Tam wrote:

workers
think they can defy the laws of economics and that their "vested rights"
supersede those laws face unemployment and evaporation of pensions.

There ain't no justice in all this: it's your economics, and your government
policy, and globalization and all the rest at work.


There's a lot of truth in this, of course -- but when pensions evaporate
a lot of entirely innocent non-hothead employees and other ordinary
people can get severely damaged.

In a decent society, IMHO, all pensions that "ordinary folks" count on
when they go to work should be fully vested more or less from the start,
and sufficiently secured through independent, prudent and conservative
financial management, backed up by government regulation and oversight,
that they just _can't_ evaporate, ever.

"Bob Chipeska" wrote in message ...
"me" wrote in message
om...
"Bob Chipeska" wrote in message
...
"me" wrote in message
om...
[snip]
While the contributions of the unions is notable. The issue at hand
is that a contract was signed and now the company is attempting to
negate that contract. More to the point, they wish to negate that
contract in order to use the funds to enrich other folks, such as
creditors and of course the current officers of the corporation
at the expense of the union members. The "rightness" of this
tactic is of course heavily dependent upon whether one stands
to profit from the action. The US tax payer may wish to take note
since they are well on their way to paying for this bailout one
way or another.

Wait a minute. These same union members own the company they work for.

No, they don't. They have seats on the board and all, but ultimately
it is owned by the shareholders, and the creditors.

http://www.esopassociation.org/media/united.html
"90,000 United employee owners own 55-percent of the company."

Yet strangely enough have only two seats on the board. Furthermore,
all their stock is about to be canceled. Sound like "owners" to you?

"Bob Chipeska" wrote in message ...
"me" wrote in message
om...
"Bob Chipeska" wrote in message
...
"me" wrote in message
om...
[snip]
While the contributions of the unions is notable. The issue at hand
is that a contract was signed and now the company is attempting to
negate that contract. More to the point, they wish to negate that
contract in order to use the funds to enrich other folks, such as
creditors and of course the current officers of the corporation
at the expense of the union members. The "rightness" of this
tactic is of course heavily dependent upon whether one stands
to profit from the action. The US tax payer may wish to take note
since they are well on their way to paying for this bailout one
way or another.

Wait a minute. These same union members own the company they work for.

No, they don't. They have seats on the board and all, but ultimately
it is owned by the shareholders, and the creditors.

http://www.esopassociation.org/media/united.html
"90,000 United employee owners own 55-percent of the company."

Yet strangely enough have only two seats on the board. Furthermore,
all their stock is about to be canceled. Sound like "owners" to you?

"me" wrote in message
om...
"Bob Chipeska" wrote in message
...
"me" wrote in message
om...
"Bob Chipeska" wrote in
message
...
"me" wrote in message
om...
[snip]
While the contributions of the unions is notable. The issue at
hand
is that a contract was signed and now the company is attempting to
negate that contract. More to the point, they wish to negate that
contract in order to use the funds to enrich other folks, such as
creditors and of course the current officers of the corporation
at the expense of the union members. The "rightness" of this
tactic is of course heavily dependent upon whether one stands
to profit from the action. The US tax payer may wish to take note
since they are well on their way to paying for this bailout one
way or another.

Wait a minute. These same union members own the company they work
for.

No, they don't. They have seats on the board and all, but
ultimately
it is owned by the shareholders, and the creditors.

http://www.esopassociation.org/media/united.html
"90,000 United employee owners own 55-percent of the company."

Yet strangely enough have only two seats on the board. Furthermore,
all their stock is about to be canceled. Sound like "owners" to you?

It doesn't matter what it "sounds like" to you. The facts are the facts: UAL
employees are also the owners of the airline. They control the shares, they
controlled the fate of their company. UAL employees, and the managers they
chose to oversee the operations, made a series of blunders over the years
and now it's finally caught up with them.

This is interesting. UAL employees bragging about being owners:
http://www.vault.com/companies/compa...83&co_page =1

Great morale
United Airlines' employees boast of their "soaring morale" now that they are
part owners of the friendly skies. "We're the largest employee-owned company
in the world. Since our employee stock option plan several years ago, we
have definitely become more people and customer oriented," reports one
contact. "Years ago we were very conservative with a traditional corporate
environment, but that has all pretty much changed. No more stuffy suits and
ties."

"me" wrote in message
om...
"Bob Chipeska" wrote in message
...
"me" wrote in message
om...
"Bob Chipeska" wrote in
message
...
"me" wrote in message
om...
[snip]
While the contributions of the unions is notable. The issue at
hand
is that a contract was signed and now the company is attempting to
negate that contract. More to the point, they wish to negate that
contract in order to use the funds to enrich other folks, such as
creditors and of course the current officers of the corporation
at the expense of the union members. The "rightness" of this
tactic is of course heavily dependent upon whether one stands
to profit from the action. The US tax payer may wish to take note
since they are well on their way to paying for this bailout one
way or another.

Wait a minute. These same union members own the company they work
for.

No, they don't. They have seats on the board and all, but
ultimately
it is owned by the shareholders, and the creditors.

http://www.esopassociation.org/media/united.html
"90,000 United employee owners own 55-percent of the company."

Yet strangely enough have only two seats on the board. Furthermore,
all their stock is about to be canceled. Sound like "owners" to you?

It doesn't matter what it "sounds like" to you. The facts are the facts: UAL
employees are also the owners of the airline. They control the shares, they
controlled the fate of their company. UAL employees, and the managers they
chose to oversee the operations, made a series of blunders over the years
and now it's finally caught up with them.

This is interesting. UAL employees bragging about being owners:
http://www.vault.com/companies/compa...83&co_page =1

Great morale
United Airlines' employees boast of their "soaring morale" now that they are
part owners of the friendly skies. "We're the largest employee-owned company
in the world. Since our employee stock option plan several years ago, we
have definitely become more people and customer oriented," reports one
contact. "Years ago we were very conservative with a traditional corporate
environment, but that has all pretty much changed. No more stuffy suits and
ties."

"me" wrote in message
om...
"Bob Chipeska" wrote in message
...
"me" wrote in message
om...
"Bob Chipeska" wrote in
message
...
"me" wrote in message
om...
[snip]
While the contributions of the unions is notable. The issue at
hand
is that a contract was signed and now the company is attempting to
negate that contract. More to the point, they wish to negate that
contract in order to use the funds to enrich other folks, such as
creditors and of course the current officers of the corporation
at the expense of the union members. The "rightness" of this
tactic is of course heavily dependent upon whether one stands
to profit from the action. The US tax payer may wish to take note
since they are well on their way to paying for this bailout one
way or another.

Wait a minute. These same union members own the company they work
for.

No, they don't. They have seats on the board and all, but
ultimately
it is owned by the shareholders, and the creditors.

http://www.esopassociation.org/media/united.html
"90,000 United employee owners own 55-percent of the company."

Yet strangely enough have only two seats on the board. Furthermore,
all their stock is about to be canceled. Sound like "owners" to you?

It doesn't matter what it "sounds like" to you. The facts are the facts: UAL
employees are also the owners of the airline. They control the shares, they
controlled the fate of their company. UAL employees, and the managers they
chose to oversee the operations, made a series of blunders over the years
and now it's finally caught up with them.

This is interesting. UAL employees bragging about being owners:
http://www.vault.com/companies/compa...83&co_page =1

Great morale
United Airlines' employees boast of their "soaring morale" now that they are
part owners of the friendly skies. "We're the largest employee-owned company
in the world. Since our employee stock option plan several years ago, we
have definitely become more people and customer oriented," reports one
contact. "Years ago we were very conservative with a traditional corporate
environment, but that has all pretty much changed. No more stuffy suits and
ties."

"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tam wrote:

workers
think they can defy the laws of economics and that their "vested rights"
supersede those laws face unemployment and evaporation of pensions.

There ain't no justice in all this: it's your economics, and your
government
policy, and globalization and all the rest at work.


There's a lot of truth in this, of course -- but when pensions evaporate
a lot of entirely innocent non-hothead employees and other ordinary
people can get severely damaged.

In a decent society, IMHO, all pensions that "ordinary folks" count on
when they go to work should be fully vested more or less from the start,
and sufficiently secured through independent, prudent and conservative
financial management, backed up by government regulation and oversight,
that they just _can't_ evaporate, ever.

Perhaps this is a proverbial "third rail", but who says? Most of us
(Americans, anyway) don't get any private-sector pension whatsoever. We're
left to fend for ourselves, with a safety net in the form of a semi-decent
guaranteed Social Security pension once we reach 65 or so. So we save and
invest for retirement. If I make a bad financial decision, I can't ask other
taxpayers to make up for my stupidity and greed. Nor can most other
Americans. UAL employees are in the bind they are in due to their own
actions. They own the company and have for many years. As Tam pointed out,
the average worker doesn't understand the rule of economics. They only
understand their personal bottom line. They were able to milk UAL for a
number of years when there were plenty of suckers willing to pay high
business fares. Those days are over, for good.

"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tam wrote:

workers
think they can defy the laws of economics and that their "vested rights"
supersede those laws face unemployment and evaporation of pensions.

There ain't no justice in all this: it's your economics, and your
government
policy, and globalization and all the rest at work.


There's a lot of truth in this, of course -- but when pensions evaporate
a lot of entirely innocent non-hothead employees and other ordinary
people can get severely damaged.

In a decent society, IMHO, all pensions that "ordinary folks" count on
when they go to work should be fully vested more or less from the start,
and sufficiently secured through independent, prudent and conservative
financial management, backed up by government regulation and oversight,
that they just _can't_ evaporate, ever.

Perhaps this is a proverbial "third rail", but who says? Most of us
(Americans, anyway) don't get any private-sector pension whatsoever. We're
left to fend for ourselves, with a safety net in the form of a semi-decent
guaranteed Social Security pension once we reach 65 or so. So we save and
invest for retirement. If I make a bad financial decision, I can't ask other
taxpayers to make up for my stupidity and greed. Nor can most other
Americans. UAL employees are in the bind they are in due to their own
actions. They own the company and have for many years. As Tam pointed out,
the average worker doesn't understand the rule of economics. They only
understand their personal bottom line. They were able to milk UAL for a
number of years when there were plenty of suckers willing to pay high
business fares. Those days are over, for good.

No, they don't. They have seats on the board and all, but ultimately
it is owned by the shareholders, and the creditors.

http://www.esopassociation.org/media/united.html
"90,000 United employee owners own 55-percent of the company."

UAL is bankrupt, remember? The employees own 55% of the stock, but
the stock is worthless (even though suckers keep paying a dollar a
share on the laughable hope that there'll be assets left after the
creditors are satisfied.) In a bankrupt company, the creditors are in
control unless and until they agree to acccept a settlement and
relaunch the company and issue new stock, which doesn't seem likely to
happen any time soon at UAL. Either way, the old stockholders are
toast.

If the employee-owners hadn't run their company into the ground, they
would still control it. But they did. so they don't.