Nope - didn't say that, either. It is what it is. I'm trying to be as objective as possible - my position is that in this instance my values (healthy economy, secure borders, etc.) differ from the majority of the public. Nothing hidden or implied there.

"Originally posted by m21sniper
Ah, i see. What the public perceives as important is skewed."

I would say that it's perfectly fine to imply the public has it's priorities ALL effed up.(whether you meant to or not)

Nothing wrong with that view at all when you're surrounded by self-absorbed soccer moms. ;)

land shark

?? As in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landshark ??

yep

either that, or foam

cork soakers

Land shark is the nickname of my preferred Porsche, the mighty 928.

And here i thought he was just cheering me on. ;)

"The Porsche model 928 is often referred to as a "Landshark" due to its ability to "eat up miles" like no other car. In addition, the frontal area of a Porsche 928 can, when viewed obliquely, resemble the mouth and eyes of a shark - particularly the Hammerhead shark. The 928 was Porsche's relatively little known but dynamically superb front engined V8 super GT built from 1978 to 1995. Today, the 928 is widely lauded as a design icon and an engineering masterpiece for its era."

I've been had! 2 points for Jim Richards.

Now you're getting somewhere. So the union was helpful to the workers how, exactly? They couldn't protect the pensions of the very deserving (and apologies to Jim727 if he thought I meant they weren't) pilots. They couldn't protect their jobs either of course, but that's no surprise.

Why should a pilot--or anyone else--believe a company OR a union that blows defined-benefit smoke up their ass? What possible use is a union in an industry as cut-throat as airlines? They can't protect their members and their bargaining strength has a direct correlation to the likelihood of the airline going belly-up!

So who's most to blame: the unions who promise but can't deliver, management that negotiates contracts they know they can't honor because the union demands them, or the workers who work for this broken beast, see it from the inside, AND STILL INEXPLICABLY TRUST THESE TWO ENTITIES TO KEEP THEM OFF FOOD STAMPS IN RETIREMENT!?!

Thanks for clearing that up.

I don't think there's any smoke in a defined-benefit plan. It's nothing more or less than an annuity. The problem is one of honesty and integrity. Airline mgmt treated the employee's retirement capital to be management's - not the employees to whom the annuities were contractually obligated. The obligation was known *in advance* not a surprise or a demanded escalation.

The question is a good one - who is more to blame; the parties who lived up to their obligation or the party who spent the money they previously promised. No different than deliberately taking out a mortgage that you have no intention of paying.

If the word "union" is removed from the discussion I think the principles become much clearer. Airline unions are very unlike others in that they are heavily focused on *your* safety.

SNL reference, as Jim pointed out. I would never reference anything 928-related. Unless it had to do with an engine swap to the back. :D

Whassup with all this off-topic stuff on this off-topic post? Foam?

cork soakers.

yep

Mini bar.

Gumby http://gumbyonsnl.ytmnd.com/

Sorry, but this is not charity. He paid for this retirement and was guaranteed a descent retirement.

The way that the airlines and govt have worked together to screw people like this is not right and needs to be stopped.

Originally posted by Superman
Ben, if workers and their interests irritate you, then go somewhere else. Or educate yourself. But I doubt you will. Companies go belly-up and management gets a pass. You would rather blame the workers, your fellow American citizens. Take a hike.

Super, thanks for the condescending remark. I am plenty educated on the intricacies of American Business. I was employeed by a corp. that was forced into bankruptcy partly because of union strong arm tactics. Funny thing is, the union "represented" the least technical and skilled positions within the company; delivery drivers, forklift operators, shipping and distribution clerks. The restructuring caused about 1000 people to lose their jobs.
I am not blaming any workers for anything other than allowing themselves to be duped by an organization that pretends to care for the workers while lining their pockets with the hard earned dollars of its' members. If a union member had put all their "dues" into a savings account, when they retire, they would have a nice retirement. Instead, members will allow their union to cause companies to close their doors because the corp simply cannot pay the prices and conditions of the unions demands.
Look at GM and Ford right now; thousands will lose their jobs..maybe it was a bad idea to pay someone 100K a year to mount tires????
Unions are past their useful life in America.
I thought airlines had the FAA to watch safety; any business in America is also under OSHA's watch as well as many other industry specific watch dog groups.
A fair salary is based on how much intellect, experience or skill a job takes. It should not be base on how much a legal extortionist group can squeeze out of a corp. before they fold and pull out of the country taking many ancillary jobs with them. The collateral damage caused by unions will have lasting effects in the US for many generations to come. Your and my children will pay the price for the Unions "helping the common man".
How many unions have been forced out of "business"? How many have been forced to lay off workers?

I am for individual responsibility for ones future. If your situation is not to your liking, change your situatiuon.

Now as far as a company being able to keep employee paid contributions..that is total BULL$H!T. No excuse for that. A contract for employment and compensation should be enforceable.

It's called freedom of speech i think....? ;)

And why would you ruin a PERFECT 50/50 weight balance to create a spin happy and inherently unsafe car? See, if i'm flying through a curve in my 928 and a deer or whatever runs out into the road, i can actually change my throttle setting or brake(hard) without a spin.

Imagine that, huh!?!?!?!? ;)

oversteer is a feature. :)

Ben, I am not pretending that all union representatives are brilliant or even competent. Or ethically pure. I'm not that naive.

But then I recall your assertion that labor unions should not exist. And now comes a statement like "I am plenty educated on the intricacies of American Business." If you believe the former, then the latter cannot be accurate.

foam?

Like the power on over-steer available at all times when you have a big Porsche hemi V-8 under the hood? ;)

I love the 911 too, but there is plenty or room in my world for TWO great Porsche design philosophies. :)

Oh....to stay on topic....Foam.

:D

Here is one of my favorite quotes. To the thoughtful, it can help illustrate the insanity of blaming commercial problems on the workers. Plus, it has an excellent chance of getting Pat really wound up.

"All that serves Labor serves the nation. All that harms Labor is treason. If a man tells you he loves America yet hates Labor, he is a liar. If a man tells you he trusts America yet fears Labor, he is a fool. There is no America without Labor, and to fleece the one is to rob th other."
Abraham Lincoln

Make up your mind. I thought this was a cocktail party.

It was, but Gumby left with the booze.

Superman, good quote and point taken.

Not so fast. Come back here and fight like a man!

Kidding. I never expect to hear respectful phrases from a discussional adversary, so I hope you'll pardon me while I recover my senses. I'm feeling a little faint.

The rest of you, take a lesson. See how mature and intelligent Ben seems when he agrees with me?

That's what most people think, but the FAA serves two masters. One of it's prime missions is promoting air commerce - meaning the airlines. Like it or not, it's a fact that change (from the regulatory side) comes about as a direct result of body count. The FAA *does* look at safety - if it doesn't cost too much - but they typically do so after-the-fact. There are a lot of safety improvements that could be made but which have not, simply because of cost. That doesn't help you if you're at the bottom of a smoking crater; it's the pilots that will keep you out of the crater in the first place. Oh, yeah - the FAA *loves* paperwork.

It doesn't hurt to remember that airline management does not come from "operations" today - meaning pilots and engineering types. They come from finance and marketing and have no clue what it means to demand that you take an aircraft into weather on one remaining generator to a destination at minimums with thunderstorms. No clue. And they get very irate when a pilot says NO. We're not talking about a union that demands paying someone $100K/year to mount tires, were talking about an association that helps the pilots stay in the cockpit when they do what is necessary to keep you alive. The pay pilots receive is widely misunderstood, but I would be willing to bet that if you surveyed the passengers of an aircraft in trouble, none of them would think them overpaid.

Agreed, but that's what's happening.

Nothing wrong with that. Until you added the capitalization. :D I wonder what he would think about how Labor fleeces labor, and whether that robs America or not?
That is the core problem. When a company, or a union pension fund, or even the federal government, takes money from a worker to pay for retirement and the worker doesn't get that money back. That's wrong no matter what entity does it.

As Jim says, that is what's happening. In the Enron case, the judge seized the funded defined benefits program to help pay stockholders. That is the most complete ****ing horse**** bull**** asinine crap I have ever heard of. Why in the world would workers' retirement monies be used to cover the mistakes of management and pay off investors that accepted the risk in the first place? Bull****. Pure bull****.

+1 that was/still is plain wrong. Huge difference between investing (taking a risk) and the poor guys who worked, paid into a system expecting to have these funds to live on in his golden years.

Thx, Byron. As I have said here many times, we mostly agree. Conservatives and liberals want the same things. Freedom. Opportunity. It's the tactical details where we sometimes do not agree. From my viewpoint, one of the main differences between the groups is that liberals do not lose sight of the belief that it's all about people. We don't subjugate those interests under that of corporations, for example. We don't shift into the "What's good for commerce is good for people" trap. Focus. Eye on the prize.

Back to basics: I think we can agree that, ultimately, it is all about people. And freedom. And opportunity. Commerce and greed sometimes support that agenda. And sometimes they do not.

land shark

I find foam very exciting