So, we taxpayers are BAILING OUT UNIONS?

[KevK]

As a UNION member, I do not expect the taxpayers to pay my pension. I expect my company to pay it. If for some reason they don't, I expect them to file bankruptcy and I expect to be paid out of the liquidation of assets. That said, since the government is busy bailing out banks, insurance giants, brokerage firms, car companies and such, the unions would be certainly within the right to try to get their fair share of the largess too.

[Wapasha]

Originally Posted by jackmccullough

This is not a bailout of unions. It is legislation to protect the workers from the improvident actions of their employers in failing to adequately fund the pension plans they freely contracted to provide for.

Thanks for the spin.

So when a union contracts with an employer for great pay, great benefits, great health care, and great retirement benefits, its up to the tax payers to ensure they get all of it, no matter what the economic circumstances for the rest of the country?

When life is great they can shoot for the moon, but when times get tough, you need to compensate, and its not the federal governments obligation to take my tax dollars to fulfill union contracts, because they are too greedy to renegotiate a more realistic contract.

[KevK]

Originally Posted by JimMe

Any representative or senator who votes for this and who acccepted union campaign contributions ought to be prosecuted for bribery.

The employers want it too. That is why it is "bi partisan" and will probably pass with a big margin.

[Wapasha]

Originally Posted by KevK

As a UNION member, I do not expect the taxpayers to pay my pension. I expect my company to pay it. If for some reason they don't, I expect them to file bankruptcy and I expect to be paid out of the liquidation of assets. That said, since the government is busy bailing out banks, insurance giants, brokerage firms, car companies and such, the unions would be certainly within the right to try to get their fair share of the largess too.

So climb on board with the rest of the treasury looters? You are not serious.

Why not renegotiate the contracts, instead of retirement at the tender age of 45 years old, why not 55, or even 60? Why not try to save the goose laying your golden eggs, and not choke it? No wonder so many companies would rather go overseas then put up with the possibility of having the misfortune to being strangled to death by greedy union members.

[KevK]

Originally Posted by Wapasha

So climb on board with the rest of the treasury looters? You are not serious.

Why not renegotiate the contracts, instead of retirement at the tender age of 45 years old, why not 55, or even 60? Why not try to save the goose laying your golden eggs, and not choke it? No wonder so many companies would rather go overseas then put up with the possibility of having the misfortune to being strangled to death by greedy union members.

Retirement is NOT done by just age. It is done by the number of years you put in the job. Where I work, it is 30 years OR when your years of service plus your age is 75- whichever comes first. You do not get PAY until you are 62 in either case. So let's say you come to work at 21 and you retire when you are 51. You do NOT draw a pension check until you are 62. You do get retiree medical benefits until you reach 65 and are Medicare eligible. But you get no pay. All that means is that you can stop work and go to another job for 15 more years if you wish. But people have the impression that union members get to "retire" at age 51 and that is not correct. I don't know of any place you can retire at 45 unless you are a cop or a fireman and even then it is only 1/2 pay. When you put in 30, it is 3/4ths pay. As for me, when I do retire in 12 years at the age of 63, I will get about $1200 a month in retirement pay. Not a terribly high amount of money which is why I put $6000 a year into the IRA which the company matches at 50%. BTW, new employees get NO pension plan but they do get 100% IRA matching.