Outrage: Union Pension Bailouts are Coming

[1billsfan]

I can see why Obama hates the age of the internet now. It's because Americans are now fully plugged into what they're doing. It's criminal in my book. Making the US taxpayers and it's future generations pay the golden ticket pension plans of union members???? Sorry scumbags, Americans are officially DONE paying for people to sit on their FAT LAZY asses...

 

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=18922

 

"Operating under the benign sounding title, “Create Jobs and Save Benefits Act of 2010”, [senator Robert] Casey’s [D-PA] bill is actually nothing more than a transfer of approximately $165 billion in Big Labor’s pension debt over to the U.S. taxpayer.

For decades, one of the primary organizing tools used by labor unions has been the promise that their members will enjoy secure pensions upon retirement. Most of these union pensions are held in what are known as multi-employer pension funds. Created in 1974 as part of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, these funds are an agreement between a union and two or more employers to fund the pensions of workers and retirees.

The rub is that if a company goes out of business, their employees remain in the system, and become the remaining company’s responsibility. As these multi-employer pension plans become more and more insolvent, the unions that run many of them do not take the fiscally responsible step of cutting benefits, raising the retirement age, asking the members to contribute to the fund, or, gasp, contributing to the fund using union dues money. Instead, many have just wished that the problem would go away.

Now, the piper is demanding to be paid."

 

 

This is truly outrageous. This must be stopped dead in it's tracks. Robert Casey should be thrown in jail for attempted robbery.

[Dante]

I can see why Obama hates the age of the internet now. It's because Americans are now fully plugged into what they're doing. It's criminal in my book. Making the US taxpayers and it's future generations pay the golden ticket pension plans of union members???? Sorry scumbags, Americans are officially DONE paying for people to sit on their FAT LAZY asses...

 

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=18922

 

"Operating under the benign sounding title, “Create Jobs and Save Benefits Act of 2010”, [senator Robert] Casey’s [D-PA] bill is actually nothing more than a transfer of approximately $165 billion in Big Labor’s pension debt over to the U.S. taxpayer.

For decades, one of the primary organizing tools used by labor unions has been the promise that their members will enjoy secure pensions upon retirement. Most of these union pensions are held in what are known as multi-employer pension funds. Created in 1974 as part of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, these funds are an agreement between a union and two or more employers to fund the pensions of workers and retirees.

The rub is that if a company goes out of business, their employees remain in the system, and become the remaining company’s responsibility. As these multi-employer pension plans become more and more insolvent, the unions that run many of them do not take the fiscally responsible step of cutting benefits, raising the retirement age, asking the members to contribute to the fund, or, gasp, contributing to the fund using union dues money. Instead, many have just wished that the problem would go away.

Now, the piper is demanding to be paid."

 

 

This is truly outrageous. This must be stopped dead in it's tracks. Robert Casey should be thrown in jail for attempted robbery.

Since the bailout and now this there is absolutely no motivation for restraint by unions. With no threat of their employer going broke and the apparent full support of the government by reinforcing pensions, the skys the limit. And if GM, Chrysler and whomever does go under Im sure Obama and the rest of the aholes will cover them off.

[KD in CA]

Big surprise here.

 

Check your state gov't budget figures. In NYS, the government employees union* is still getting full pay increases every year, the union is getting judges to ban the gov't from laying people off or enacting furloughs, there's been no cut in the rich pensions -- yes, this includes a annual gaurenteed rate of return on the benefits (that means their value doesn't go up or down with the market like everyone else, nope, they get a gaurenteed return. Where does that extra money come from when the assets of the pension fund don't earn enough in the market to cover the gaurenteed return? I'll give you one good guess.)

 

Oh, but don't worry, you're elected representative are "negotiating" to get the best deal for taxpayers.

 

 

 

* Why exactly do gov't employees need a union? So they won't be forced into sweatshops shuffling papers for the same gov't that created all the workplace rules that make unions unnecessary now?

[erynthered]

Good read.

[Chef Jim]

Big surprise here.

 

Check your state gov't budget figures. In NYS, the government employees union* is still getting full pay increases every year, the union is getting judges to ban the gov't from laying people off or enacting furloughs, there's been no cut in the rich pensions -- yes, this includes a annual gaurenteed rate of return on the benefits (that means their value doesn't go up or down with the market like everyone else, nope, they get a gaurenteed return. Where does that extra money come from when the assets of the pension fund don't earn enough in the market to cover the gaurenteed return? I'll give you one good guess.)

 

Oh, but don't worry, you're elected representative are "negotiating" to get the best deal for taxpayers.

 

 

 

* Why exactly do gov't employees need a union? So they won't be forced into sweatshops shuffling papers for the same gov't that created all the workplace rules that make unions unnecessary now?

 

I have a rep who has a client who was the head librarian for the city library. She is now retired at the age of 59 with a pension of $150k plus full medical. Her and her husband are living large.

[Magox]

Good read.

That is outrageous.

[pBills]

I can see why Obama hates the age of the internet now. It's because Americans are now fully plugged into what they're doing. It's criminal in my book. Making the US taxpayers and it's future generations pay the golden ticket pension plans of union members???? Sorry scumbags, Americans are officially DONE paying for people to sit on their FAT LAZY asses...

 

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=18922

 

"Operating under the benign sounding title, “Create Jobs and Save Benefits Act of 2010”, [senator Robert] Casey’s [D-PA] bill is actually nothing more than a transfer of approximately $165 billion in Big Labor’s pension debt over to the U.S. taxpayer.

For decades, one of the primary organizing tools used by labor unions has been the promise that their members will enjoy secure pensions upon retirement. Most of these union pensions are held in what are known as multi-employer pension funds. Created in 1974 as part of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, these funds are an agreement between a union and two or more employers to fund the pensions of workers and retirees.

The rub is that if a company goes out of business, their employees remain in the system, and become the remaining company’s responsibility. As these multi-employer pension plans become more and more insolvent, the unions that run many of them do not take the fiscally responsible step of cutting benefits, raising the retirement age, asking the members to contribute to the fund, or, gasp, contributing to the fund using union dues money. Instead, many have just wished that the problem would go away.

Now, the piper is demanding to be paid."

 

 

This is truly outrageous. This must be stopped dead in it's tracks. Robert Casey should be thrown in jail for attempted robbery.

 

 

Kind of like those golden parachutes execs receive right?

[Magox]

Kind of like those golden parachutes execs receive right?

You do have A point. However, those golden parachutes, as ridiculous as they may be, don't cost the U.S taxpayer nearly what those Union pensions do. Those golden parachutes that are offered by some of these corporations can be held accountable by stockholders. If you don't like the way they are doing business, sell their stock.

[pBills]

You do have A point. However, those golden parachutes, as ridiculous as they may be, don't cost the U.S taxpayer nearly what those Union pensions do. Those golden parachutes that are offered by some of these corporations can be held accountable by stockholders. If you don't like the way they are doing business, sell their stock.

 

 

Either way they are using your money right?

[erynthered]

Either way they are using your money right?

 

 

One is by choice, the other is not.

[Magox]

Either way they are using your money right?

No... Only if I were a stockholder, or if they received a government bailout and they received one of these golden parachutes...

[pBills]

One is by choice, the other is not.

 

 

 

I'd say both are not by choice. No one buys a stock thinking that the execs are going to be $75+ million dollar bailouts. But I guess it was their choice since they bought the stock right?

[Magox]

I'd say both are not by choice. No one buys a stock thinking that the execs are going to be $75+ million dollar bailouts. But I guess it was their choice since they bought the stock right?

Yes, and you can hold them accountable by selling the stock. It was your decision to buy the stock, knowing that "golden parachutes" is a common practice...

 

Thats the difference...

[erynthered]

I'd say both are not by choice. No one buys a stock thinking that the execs are going to be $75+ million dollar bailouts. But I guess it was their choice since they bought the stock right?

 

At least with one I'm getting a ROI. The other I'm not.

[1billsfan]

I'd say both are not by choice. No one buys a stock thinking that the execs are going to be $75+ million dollar bailouts. But I guess it was their choice since they bought the stock right?

 

1. The banks paid back the bailout money.

2. $165 billion in taxpayer dollars vs $0 in taxpayer dollars.

3. California, New York, New Jersey and the US are all broke.

4. Unions need to wake and and realize this isn't the 1950s we're living in.

5. US taxpayers will not stand for bailing out ridiculous fat cat union contracts so that they can sit on their fat lazy asses.

[DC Tom]

Yes, and you can hold them accountable by selling the stock. It was your decision to buy the stock, knowing that "golden parachutes" is a common practice...

 

Thats the difference...

 

Plus, if a company's worth investing in, the executives are probably doing a good job and the "golden parachute" never gets executed anyway...

 

It's just a ridiculous analogy he made.

[John Adams]

1. The banks paid back the bailout money.

2. $165 billion in taxpayer dollars vs $0 in taxpayer dollars.

3. California, New York, New Jersey and the US are all broke.

4. Unions need to wake and and realize this isn't the 1950s we're living in.

5. US taxpayers will not stand for bailing out ridiculous fat cat union contracts so that they can sit on their fat lazy asses.

 

Truthometer Readings:

 

1. The banks paid back the bailout money.--TRUE AND FALSE...the biggest offender AIG will never pay it back and they were the worst offender, and are still bleeding money

2. $165 billion in taxpayer dollars vs $0 in taxpayer dollars. --TRUE

3. California, New York, New Jersey and the US are all broke.--TRUE

4. Unions need to wake and and realize this isn't the 1950s we're living in.--TRUE

5. US taxpayers will not stand for bailing out ridiculous fat cat union contracts so that they can sit on their fat lazy asses.--FALSE...sorry, taxpayers don't complain much about spending increases, only spending cuts.

[DC Tom]

5. US taxpayers will not stand for bailing out ridiculous fat cat union contracts so that they can sit on their fat lazy asses.--FALSE...sorry, taxpayers don't complain much about spending increases, only spending cuts.

 

I don't know about that. Given that the country is pretty well segregated into people who pay taxes while consuming few services, and people who pay no taxes while consuming a lot of services, I think the tax payers may complain more about spending increases.

 

Now, had you said "voters"...

[GG]

Truthometer Readings:

 

1. The banks paid back the bailout money.--TRUE AND FALSE...the biggest offender AIG will never pay it back and they were the worst offender, and are still bleeding money

 

Not quite False - there's a growing chance that AIG will repay the money.

[/dev/null]

Kind of like those golden parachutes execs receive right?

2 wrongs don't make a right.