What's new

FedEx Freight | Congress Passed Pension Cuts

We're a whole nation here....and when things crash well all pay.....Taxes go up...all kind of nutty things can happen.......all for the companies to have their way.....work till were dead for only a few.
Twice Pipes said:
This system worked out just fine for me. When the Teamsters start cutting the pension benefits, especially in the central states pension fund, it won't look nearly as attractive as it does now.
Click to expand...
 
slavenomore said:
Union numbers were 36% in 1955.
Men averaged living 66 years and 7 months.

That wasn't a very long retirement and survival just fine was short lived.

Before 1955 life expectancy decreased.

This charts easier to read:
http://demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html

You said before union heydays people retired and survived fine.
Click to expand...

No, I said survived and retired. I meant they managed to get along all their life without help except from themselves.
 
slavenomore said:
How long did they live?
Click to expand...

Valid point Slave. No doubt a contributing factor, when it comes to underfunded retirement plans, as well as Social Security.

When I was born, life expectancy was 66.8 years. Meaning, if I retired at 65, I would be expected to only collect for an average of 1.8 years. Pretty easy to fund that. Now that expectancy is around 79 years. The old retirement model of 65 means funding for 14 + years, on average. Quite a bit more challenging, regardless of who is doing the funding...

The biggest problem I see is far to much money being taken out of the free market, by Government. Rather than allowing people to keep their money and fund themselves (and worthy causes), in all areas, the Govt. takes more in order to fund many of the same things, though much less efficiently.

Combine higher percentages of income "taken", more qualifying for assistance programs, lower percentages of population working (paying in), all the while collecting more, for longer periods of time, and you have recipe unsustainability.
 
SwampRatt said:
Valid point Slave. No doubt a contributing factor, when it comes to underfunded retirement plans, as well as Social Security.

When I was born, life expectancy was 66.8 years. Meaning, if I retired at 65, I would be expected to only collect for an average of 1.8 years. Pretty easy to fund that. Now that expectancy is around 79 years. The old retirement model of 65 means funding for 14 + years, on average. Quite a bit more challenging, regardless of who is doing the funding...

The biggest problem I see is far to much money being taken out of the free market, by Government. Rather than allowing people to keep their money and fund themselves (and worthy causes), in all areas, the Govt. takes more in order to fund many of the same things, though much less efficiently.

Combine higher percentages of income "taken", more qualifying for assistance programs, lower percentages of population working (paying in), all the while collecting more, for longer periods of time, and you have recipe unsustainability.
Click to expand...
You left out the part about the decline in the number of union members. Hastening the decline of the pyramid scheme, I mean multiemployer pension.
 
Purple Hammer said:
You left out the part about the decline in the number of union members. Hastening the decline of the pyramid scheme, I mean multiemployer pension.
Click to expand...
Valid point, as well. Going forward, under the evolving union contract model, that situation is unlikely to change. No new companies (and their employees) are likely to be added to the multi-employer plans.

Even though historically, membership has declined, I'm not sure that membership in Unions is currently in decline. In fact, it currently seems to be holding steady, as a percentage. Source- http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t01.htm

Current well funded plans should be able to maintain, as long as membership in those plans continues to hold steady.

Even if overall membership increases, it won't save Central States and the like, due to the above reasons. No significant growth in new membership and the burden of carrying employees of now defunct carriers, CF being the largest, I would guess.
 
Yeah....thats the part where stories like I posted about 401k's and nobody having enough to live on after retirement, keep getting worse.....

And as you all followed some nutty philisoohy of freedom.....without unions.......they come like tyrants and mandate retirement and take from everybody who did save to make it work.


Shouldve stuck with unions. It was better and involved more freedom.

Purple Hammer said:
You left out the part about the decline in the number of union members. Hastening the decline of the pyramid scheme, I mean multiemployer pension.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah....thats the part where stories like I posted about 401k's and nobody having enough to live on after retirement, keep getting worse.....

And as you all followed some nutty philisoohy of freedom.....without unions.......they come like tyrants and mandate retirement and take from everybody who did save to make it work.


Shouldve stuck with unions. It was better and involved more freedom.

Purple Hammer said:
You left out the part about the decline in the number of union members. Hastening the decline of the pyramid scheme, I mean multiemployer pension.
Click to expand...
johndeere4020 said:
You are really grasping at straws on this one, maybe you can compare the FedEx union drive to civil rights again!
Click to expand...

It is a civl rights issue imo.
Keeping everything in the " economics" box is where my opposition wants it. That lead to cold hearted explosions of divorce, abortion.....and will eventually lead to seniors working till death, not affording meds, losing everything, maybe even euthanasia as people say...it's their own fault...let them die......we can't afford them.
Keeping unions in the economic box allows for that.
 
Companies didnt just give health insurance. It was bargained for. Union health insurance paid for advancements in a big way most probably.

You think companies should provide nothing.
Under that philosophy government wouldve paid for all afvancement. Union healthcare kept advancement in the market

If companies werent held to providing under contract, they wouldnt have.....and maybe wed still be stuck in th 1970's advancement-wise.
Redracer3136 said:
Huh....and here I thought extended life expectancies were due to advancements in medicines/vaccinations, healthcare, eating healthy, exercising, etc....
I had no idea the union was responsible!
Who knew?
Click to expand...
 
slavenomore said:
Companies didnt just give health insurance. It was bargained for. Union health insurance paid for advancements in a big way most probably.

You think companies should provide nothing.
Under that philosophy government wouldve paid for all afvancement. Union healthcare kept advancement in the market

If companies werent held to providing under contract, they wouldnt have.....and maybe wed still be stuck in th 1970's advancement-wise.
Click to expand...

It wasn't originally bargained for, companies started offering health insurance to make up for wage freezes put in place by Roosevelt, a democrat strongly supported by unions.
 
SwampRatt said:
Valid point, as well. Going forward, under the evolving union contract model, that situation is unlikely to change. No new companies (and their employees) are likely to be added to the multi-employer plans.

Even though historically, membership has declined, I'm not sure that membership in Unions is currently in decline. In fact, it currently seems to be holding steady, as a percentage. Source- http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t01.htm

Current well funded plans should be able to maintain, as long as membership in those plans continues to hold steady.

Even if overall membership increases, it won't save Central States and the like, due to the above reasons. No significant growth in new membership and the burden of carrying employees of now defunct carriers, CF being the largest, I would guess.
Click to expand...
What your link actually shows is that in both years represented, the amount of employees represented by unions (freeloaders) outnumbers the amount of actual union members! When we factor in that less than half of the states, (24 out of 50), are Right To Work states where forced unionization is illegal, that number becomes staggering!
This graph also shows another startling graphic...when you look at the total amount of members/non-members for the 25-34 demographic compared to the 35-44 demographic and up, you see a BIG drop off in the numbers. Why? Could it be because this is the age group where most people "start" their employement with a union employer and then leave within the first ten years due to continuous layoffs, lack of work, no advancement in seniority, better employment opportunities, etc...?
Private sector unions are experiencing a slow and painful death while it's members who were lied to are trying to hang on...and I don't blame them. What baffles me is why anyone would want to join in their misery?
Public sector unions make up a majority of the union memberships numbers and those numbers will probably never see decline since they're forcibly funded by the taxpayers....just one of the many reasons that even FDR was opposed to public sector unions.
 
Keep whistling in the wind and ignoring the real world. The uniin way was best and the antiuniin world has ruined what made this country worth dying for.
No healthcare was brought because of abuse by nonunion companies destroying union companies.
Refusal tto join unions has now cost retirees what was rightcully theirs.
Lack of conteacts allowed for low pay where people couldnt afford homes which resulted in Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac.

We no linger have skills or manufacturing to supply manufactures needed for defense due to unionbusting economics destroying manufacturings defense-the unions.

People choose to receive assistance/unemployment instead of working because work no longer pays.
The antiunion side has America in decline. On our way out not up.
johndeere4020 said:
At the rate of pay that the average non union LTL driver makes if you can't save 15% of you pretax pay you may need to adjust your lifestyle a little. I've heard it before "I just can't afford it" then they drive away in their new pickup pulling their boat or Harley. Look I'm not so pig headed to think that people have have bills and its hard, I have little kids and bills I get it, but you have to take care of yourself and that may mean sacrificing a little. Believe it or not this country was founded on the idea of taking care of yourself and being independent long before your precious union came along.
Click to expand...
 
Without those public sector unions you wouldnt have any jobs that paid left here. Union money keeps jobs here...not the market.
Redracer3136 said:
What your link actually shows is that in both years represented, the amount of employees represented by unions (freeloaders) outnumbers the amount of actual union members! When we factor in that less than half of the states, (24 out of 50), are Right To Work states where forced unionization is illegal, that number becomes staggering!
This graph also shows another startling graphic...when you look at the total amount of members/non-members for the 25-34 demographic compared to the 35-44 demographic and up, you see a BIG drop off in the numbers. Why? Could it be because this is the age group where most people "start" their employement with a union employer and then leave within the first ten years due to continuous layoffs, lack of work, no advancement in seniority, better employment opportunities, etc...?
Private sector unions are experiencing a slow and painful death while it's members who were lied to are trying to hang on...and I don't blame them. What baffles me is why anyone would want to join in their misery?
Public sector unions make up a majority of the union memberships numbers and those numbers will probably never see decline since they're forcibly funded by the taxpayers....just one of the many reasons that even FDR was opposed to public sector unions.
Click to expand...
 
Your ways of letting companies do as they please allows them to leave yet still ship back here to save labor costs
....till one day nobody has jobs which to buy stuff....we're getting there. Good job!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top