Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Um, I think they might have to sell that second home, and if they can retire at 48-50, I'd have a very hard time feeling sorry for them..
don't worry, there's plenty of them that have one house, a kid in college, not living the high life, working full time again, and did retire at 48-50. my dad is one of them. he started working for GM when he was 18 and worked there for 30 years. he took the retirement buyout two years ago.
don't worry, there's plenty of them that have one house, a kid in college, not living the high life, working full time again, and did retire at 48-50. my dad is one of them. he started working for GM when he was 18 and worked there for 30 years. he took the retirement buyout two years ago.
I wouldnt worry about what posters like pghquest post. People like this are angry little people who probably get picked on all day and their only escape from their miserable life in too insult posters on a message board.
Other retirees from the Top 500 firms get pensions and health care although in the last couple of years the price for them is rising.
Workers today get nothing..no pension plan nor health care after retirement. We are on our own with a 401K which will never compare to a pension plan. Big companies have been phasing out retirement benefits for quite a few years now by either increasing costs so much you can't afford it or just plain dropping it.
What I'm worried about is what happens in 20 years when these workers that only have a 401K to retire on starting hitting the retirement age.
Thyat i9s for conpanies that don't match. if tehy match they pay into your retirement.They just don't manage the moneyfor you and promise you can't lose. that has become unrealistic.
Seriously -how hard is it to separate SALARIED RETIREES from laid-off workers?
Or salaried retirees (no contract) from Union retirees (contract??)
Are you all just bitter that these people had better opportunities that now you have to lump them in?
...
Ah I see. White collar employees deserve pensions but blue collar employees, who negotiated their benefits and retirement as well, and worked for decades for GM, deserve to lose their benefits and retirement. Yep, I get it. It's exactly your thinking that makes unions a necessity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Briolat21
But I am tired of people on these boards lumping salaried retirees who dedicated their lives to the company in with other groups of people who you seem to think are not worth being provided for in their old age....
Nope, the line workers that worked there for 20-30 years certainly didn't dedicate themselves to GM either. All I have to say is wow.
Thyat i9s for conpanies that don't match. if tehy match they pay into your retirement.They just don't manage the moneyfor you and promise you can't lose. that has become unrealistic.
Be that as it may, if one thinks a company match is the equivalent to a 50-75% high three pension, you've hit your head. Company match is peanuts. Even if it doubles my money I can only get an inflation ridden fraction of what I put in, and when even that outcome is dependent on the idea of front-loading retirement on an inflation eroded McWage, then retirement is very likely the wishful thought of the decade. 401Ks are a joke. The ironic thing is that in the pursuit of the idea that front-loading retirement is the 'American' thing to do, these companies are fostering the very socialistic governmental architecture that they claim to disavow.
Everybody thinks there is such a thing as a free lunch. That companies can just declare bankruptcy and act as though it's a clean sheet and those costs just disappear. People don't go away just because you shut the door on them. They're still outside, hungry and angry. These costs never go away, they just get subrogated to other sectors of society. 401Ks shift the compensation burden on the worker, when the workers finally are incapable of retiring and start pouring out in the street defaulting because they're dispossessed and becoming a burden on the younger workers, who now by virtue of having to subsidize their households and their previous generation household, are now too defaulting, the house of cards collapses. Now NOBODY gets a lunch. Hooray for 401K...what a short-sighted piece of corporatist investment vehicle garbage. If there was ever a more direct way to force the socio-economic change into an european model, 401Ks are it. How you like them apples? Set up for failure from the get go. Sold a socialist outcome on the slogan of "independence". Unintended consequences alright....
Ah I see. White collar employees deserve pensions but blue collar employees, who negotiated their benefits and retirement as well, and worked for decades for GM, deserve to lose their benefits and retirement. Yep, I get it. It's exactly your thinking that makes unions a necessity.
Nope, the line workers that worked there for 20-30 years certainly didn't dedicate themselves to GM either. All I have to say is wow.
(jumping in just to comment on the unions) the unions said that they needed bailing out too so they weren't much help to the workers in the end. they seem to be able to mismanage money as well as the government and i think that the unions add another layer of bureaucracy that workers just don't need.
Last edited by floridasandy; 06-01-2009 at 04:29 PM..
I wouldnt worry about what posters like pghquest post. People like this are angry little people who probably get picked on all day and their only escape from their miserable life in too insult posters on a message board.
Not the least bit angry, I made a killing last month on GM stock, enough to buy me a new car.. Only question is, will it be a GM..
Ah I see. White collar employees deserve pensions but blue collar employees, who negotiated their benefits and retirement as well, and worked for decades for GM, deserve to lose their benefits and retirement. Yep, I get it. It's exactly your thinking that makes unions a necessity.
Nope, the line workers that worked there for 20-30 years certainly didn't dedicate themselves to GM either. All I have to say is wow.
No, actually I have no problems with Unions. I feel Unions are more necessary than ever in today's era of dwindling protections for employees. However, that doesn't make it right for people to lump all GM employees together. If the person has a problem with Unions, they should say so - because then you will know what you are dealing with. If they say "I hate GM retirees they suck and should have known better" - well, that's a class of many different workers (union, non-union, executive, etc..) and its hard to figure out exactly what their problem is. Also, I think salaried people get overlooked because they didn't have contracts. They deferred their earning potential on the good-word of the company they worked for, and had no contract guaranteeing it. People now seem to think these people were stupid and deserve to be thrown to the wolves, and it irritates me, because at the time these people were making the best decision they could to provide for themselves, their families and their future.
I am not anti-union. But a lot of other people are and instead of saying it, they hide in ambiguities about "those employees".
You business junkies wonder why most folks DO NOT TRUST BUSINESS of any kind.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
